Court Opinion

ID: 9376677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-03 16:00:53.431733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:08.238078
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-7049     Document: 010110821004       Date Filed: 03/03/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           March 3, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 22-7049
                                                   (D.C. Nos. 6:19-CV-00219-RAW &
  NELSON ALAS,                                          6:17-CR-00049-RAW-2)
                                                               (E.D. Okla.)
        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
                    _________________________________

 Before McHUGH, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       This matter is before the court on Nelson Alas’s pro se request for a

 certificate of appealability (“COA”). He seeks a COA so he can appeal the

 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

 (providing no appeal is allowed from a “final order in a proceeding under

 section 2255” unless the movant first obtains a COA). Because he has not

 “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” id.

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 22-7049   Document: 010110821004    Date Filed: 03/03/2023   Page: 2

 § 2253(c)(2), this court denies his request for a COA and dismisses this

 appeal. 1

       Alas pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to possess with

 intent to distribute large quantities of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C.

 §§ 841, 846. In exchange for Alas’s guilty plea, the government dismissed

 numerous additional substantive counts and a count seeking forfeiture of

 assets derived from the conspiracy. The district court imposed a sentence of

 135 months’ imprisonment, a term at the bottom of the advisory range set

 out in the Sentencing Guidelines. Thereafter, Alas filed the instant § 2255

 motion, asserting the government breached the plea agreement by failing to

 adequately make the district court aware, by the time of sentencing, of any

 assistance Alas provided “in any ongoing investigation into criminal activity

 within the Eastern District of Oklahoma and elsewhere, or in the prosecution

       1
         The government has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal as untimely.
 As the basis for that motion, the government asserts Alas was obligated to file
 his notice of appeal within fourteen days of the entry of the judgment. See
 Gov’t Motion at 3 (citing Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(a)(i)). In a proceeding under
 § 2255, however, the notice of appeal must be filed within sixty days of entry
 of the judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). This is
 true because proceedings under § 2255 are civil in nature and involve the
 United States and/or one its officers or employees sued in an official capacity.
 United States v. Williams, 790 F.3d 1059, 1077 n. 14 (10th Cir. 2015); United
 States v. Cruz, 774 F.3d 1278, 1284 (10th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pinto, 1
 F.3d 1069, 1070 (10th Cir. 1993). Alas filed his notice of appeal within the
 sixty-day window and his appeal is, therefore, timely. Accordingly, the
 government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely is DENIED.
                                         2
Appellate Case: 22-7049   Document: 010110821004   Date Filed: 03/03/2023   Page: 3

 of another person who has committed a criminal offense.” He also raised

 two overarching claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

       The district court denied Alas’s request for collateral relief. As to

 Alas’s claim the government breached the plea agreement, the district court

 found it had, in fact, been made aware of Alas’s cooperation and that the

 matter had been vetted at the sentencing hearing. Furthermore, the district

 court concluded it was well-aware of its authority to vary or depart sua

 sponte based on any such cooperation and that the record demonstrated Alas

 was not entitled to such relief. As to Alas’s claims of ineffective assistance,

 the district court concluded they were inconsistent with facts and the record

 and, more importantly, at odds with “solemn declarations” Alas made “in

 open court” during the plea colloquy. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S.

 63, 74 (1977) (“Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong

 presumption of verity. The subsequent presentation of conclusory

 allegations unsupported by specifics is subject to summary dismissal, as are

 contentions that in the face of the record are wholly incredible.”).

       Alas seeks a COA so he can appeal the district court’s denial of his

 § 2255 motion. The granting of a COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an

 appeal from the denial of a § 2255 motion. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

 322, 335–36 (2003). To be entitled to a COA, Alas must make “a

                                        3
Appellate Case: 22-7049   Document: 010110821004   Date Filed: 03/03/2023   Page: 4

 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

 § 2253(c)(2). To make the requisite showing, he must demonstrate

 “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the

 petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues

 presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”

 Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336 (quotations omitted). In evaluating whether he

 has satisfied this burden, we undertake “a preliminary, though not

 definitive, consideration of the [legal] framework” applicable to each of his

 claims. Id. at 338. Although he need not demonstrate his appeal will

 succeed to be entitled to a COA, he must “prove something more than the

 absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith.” Id. (quotations

 omitted).

       Having undertaken a review of Alas’s combined appellate brief and

 request for COA, the district court’s order, and the entire record before this

 court pursuant to the framework set out by the Supreme Court in Miller-El,

 we conclude Alas is not entitled to a COA. In so concluding, this court has

 nothing to add to the district court’s thorough order denying Alas’s § 2255

                                        4
Appellate Case: 22-7049   Document: 010110821004    Date Filed: 03/03/2023   Page: 5

 motion. Accordingly, Alas’s request for a COA is DENIED and this appeal

 is DISMISSED.

                                        Entered for the Court

                                        Michael R. Murphy
                                        Circuit Judge

                                        5