Court Opinion

ID: 9960900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 16:00:38.32998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:02.116399
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1253     Document: 010111033484          Date Filed: 04/17/2024         Page: 1
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                           United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                              Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                               April 17, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                              Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                  Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                            No. 23-1253
                                                      (D.C. Nos. 1:22-CV-02310-RM &
  JESUS ANTILLO-QUINTERO,                                 1:20-CR-00028-RM-14)
                                                                  (D. Colo.)
        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

        Jesus Antillo-Quintero, a federal prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability

 (COA) to appeal the denial of his motion to reopen the time to appeal the denial of his

 motion for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Exercising jurisdiction under

 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we deny a COA.

                                               I

        Mr. Antillo-Quintero timely filed a motion for writ of habeas corpus under § 2255

 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On January 27, 2023, the

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,
 res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
 consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-1253     Document: 010111033484          Date Filed: 04/17/2024        Page: 2

 motion was denied. The court’s docket sheet shows that a copy of the order was mailed

 to Mr. Antillo-Quintero at his address on file with the court.

        On July 26, 2023, Mr. Antillo-Quintero filed a motion under Fed. R. App. P.

 4(a)(6) to reopen the time to appeal. Rule 4(a)(6)(A)-(C) provides in relevant part that

 the court may reopen the time for filing an appeal in a civil case where (1) the moving

 party did not receive notice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d) of the entry of judgment or the

 order sought to be appealed within twenty-one days of entry; (2) the motion is filed

 within 180 days after entry of the judgment or order; and (3) no party would be

 prejudiced. Mr. Antillo-Quintero argued that he satisfied all these requirements.

        The district court denied the motion. Focusing on the first requirement, the court

 found that the order was mailed to Mr. Antillo-Quintero’s address and “was [never]

 returned as undeliverable or otherwise,” Aplt. App. at 84, pointing to the docket sheet

 showing that the order was mailed to Mr. Antillo-Quintero at his address on file with the

 court. In a separate order, the court denied a COA on the grounds that “jurists of reason

 would [not] find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural

 ruling.” Aplt. App. at 89 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Here, the matter is not

 debatable in the eyes of this Court. The Motion to Reopen was predicated on the

 docket’s failure to show mailing and service. But, as set forth in the Order Denying

 Motion to Reopen, examination of the docket readily reveals” that the order was mailed

 to Mr. Antillo-Quintero. Id. Mr. Antillo-Quintero seeks a COA to appeal the court’s

 denial of the motion to reopen.

                                              2
Appellate Case: 23-1253      Document: 010111033484          Date Filed: 04/17/2024        Page: 3

                                               II

        To appeal the denial of relief under § 2255, a prisoner must obtain a COA. See

 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (“Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a [COA], an appeal

 may not be taken to the court of appeals from . . . the final order in a proceeding under

 section 2255.”). “We may grant a COA only if the petitioner makes a ‘substantial

 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Milton v. Miller, 812 F.3d 1252, 1263

 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)).

        When the district court’s denial of relief is based on procedural grounds, a COA

 may not issue unless the prisoner shows that “jurists of reason would find it debatable

 whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that

 jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

 procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (emphasis added).

 The prisoner must overcome both hurdles, as “[e]ach component . . . is part of a threshold

 inquiry.” Id. at 485. But instead of addressing the threshold requirements in order,

 we may “resolve the issue whose answer is more apparent from the record and

 arguments.” Id.

                                              III

        Mr. Antillo-Quintero raises two arguments. First, he maintains that a COA is not

 required to appeal the denial of a motion to reopen the time to appeal. We disagree. See

 Dulworth v. Jones, 496 F.3d 1133, 1135-36 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting other circuits require

 a COA to appeal the denial of a Rule 4(a)(6) motion because such denials are final

 orders), abrogated on other grounds by Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009);

                                               3
Appellate Case: 23-1253     Document: 010111033484         Date Filed: 04/17/2024       Page: 4

 United States v. Rinaldi, 447 F.3d 192, 195 (3d Cir. 2006) (holding the denial of a

 Rule 4(a)(6) motion is a final order, and a COA is therefore necessary for appellate

 review of that denial); Eltayib v. United States, 294 F.3d 397, 398-99 (2d Cir. 2002)

 (same); Coots v. Allbaugh, 656 F. App’x 385, 387 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (same)

 (cited for persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A)).

        Second, Mr. Antillo-Quintero points to a mailing error concerning a different

 order that was intended for him but sent by mistake to a different prisoner and returned to

 the district court as “Unclaimed.” Aplt. App. at 87. He maintains that had the court been

 aware of this error—albeit a mailing error concerning different order—it might have

 found his version of the facts more believable and granted the motion. Again, we

 disagree. As the court found, the docket plainly establishes that the order denying the

 § 2255 motion was mailed to Mr. Antillo-Quintero—not to someone else by mistake.

                                             IV

        Because reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the district court’s

 denial of Mr. Antillo-Quintero’s motion to reopen, we decline to issue a COA and we

 dismiss this matter.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Carolyn B. McHugh
                                              Circuit Judge

                                              4