672 F. App'x 796
10th Cir.2016Background
- In 2011 Collazo pled guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and was sentenced to 180 months under the ACCA enhancement.
- In 2016 Collazo filed a § 2255 motion seeking resentencing based on Johnson v. United States (challenge to ACCA’s residual clause).
- The district court found Collazo’s sentence relied on four prior convictions for "serious drug offense[s]" (not the ACCA residual clause) and denied relief and a COA; Collazo appealed and sought IFP.
- Collazo alternatively argued at resentencing the prior convictions were not separate events and thus could not count as multiple predicates for § 924(e)(1).
- The district court denied IFP because Collazo had roughly $1,500 in his prison account; Collazo appealed the denial of § 2255 relief, the COA denial, and the IFP denial.
Issues
| Issue | Collazo's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson invalidates Collazo’s ACCA enhancement | Johnson renders ACCA residual-clause enhancements invalid, so Collazo needs resentencing | Collazo wasn’t sentenced under the residual clause; enhancement rested on serious drug offenses | Denied — Johnson inapplicable because sentence was based on § 924(e)(1) serious drug offense predicates |
| Whether prior convictions counted as separate predicate offenses | The district court misidentified predicates; convictions arose from the same event, so cannot supply required predicate count | Separateness challenge could have been raised earlier and is time-barred; Johnson does not revive it | Denied as untimely — claim is time-barred under § 2255(f) and not saved by Johnson |
| Whether a COA should issue for the § 2255 denial | Collazo says reasonable jurists would debate the district court’s assessment | Court: applicant must show reasonable jurists could find the assessment debatable or wrong | Denied — Collazo failed to make the requisite substantial showing for a COA |
| Whether Collazo may proceed IFP on appeal | Collazo asserts inability to pay filing fees | Court cites inmate account balance (~$1,500) indicating ability to pay | Denied — Collazo has sufficient funds to afford appeal filing fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (procedural rule for issuance of certificate of appealability)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for when a COA should issue—reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s resolution)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (held ACCA’s residual clause void for vagueness)
- DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502 (financial inability standard for proceeding in forma pauperis)