United States v. Garcia
690 F. App'x 622
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jacqueline M. Garcia was convicted in 2013 of methamphetamine conspiracy and of using a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense and sentenced to 180 months.
- Her direct appeal was affirmed. She filed a first § 2255 motion in January 2016, which remains pending in the district court.
- In October 2016 she filed a second filing titled "Motion to Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Amendment 794 of U.S.S.G. 3B1.2," seeking a sentence reduction based on Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
- The district court dismissed that second filing as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion for which Garcia lacked jurisdiction to proceed in district court; Garcia appealed and sought a certificate of appealability (COA).
- The Tenth Circuit concluded Garcia’s claim concerns the Sentencing Guidelines (a nonconstitutional sentencing issue), so she cannot obtain a COA; the court denied a COA and dismissed the appeal.
- The panel noted the district court mistakenly characterized the motion as a second § 2255 when it more closely resembled a § 3582(c)(2) motion, but held the dismissal must stand because Garcia cannot meet Slack’s merits prong for a COA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garcia can obtain a COA to appeal the district court's dismissal of her filing | Garcia seeks a sentence reduction based on Amendment 794 to the Guidelines | Government (and district court) treated the filing as an unauthorized second/successive § 2255 and thus outside district court jurisdiction | COA denied because the claim is a nonconstitutional sentencing issue and therefore not sufficient to show the denial of a constitutional right |
| Whether the filing is a proper § 2255 motion or a § 3582(c)(2) motion | Garcia framed relief as under § 2255 referencing Amendment 794 | District court treated it as a second § 2255; panel observed it appears more like a § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking sentence reduction | Panel observed the motion appears to be under § 3582(c)(2), not a second § 2255, but declined relief because COA standards were not met |
| Whether Amendment 794 is retroactive for § 3582(c)(2) relief | Garcia argued Amendment 794 should reduce her sentencing range | Government argued § 3582(c)(2) relief requires the amendment be listed as retroactive in USSG § 1B1.10(d) | Amendment 794 is not listed as retroactive in § 1B1.10(d); § 3582(c)(2) cannot provide relief (as noted in concurrence) |
| Whether the district court erred in procedural treatment (Slack procedural prong) | Garcia contended district court dismissal was incorrect | Respondent argued dismissal on procedural grounds was proper | Court did not reach procedural-prong relief because plaintiff failed the merits-prong; dismissal stands without COA |
Key Cases Cited
- Harper v. United States, 545 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir.) (COA requirement explained)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for COA when district court dismisses on procedural grounds)
- Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir.) (liberal construction for pro se filings)
- Harfst v. United States, 168 F.3d 398 (10th Cir.) (nonconstitutional sentencing issues do not support COA)
- Christensen v. United States, 456 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir.) (same principle in ACCA context)
- Avila v. United States, 997 F.2d 767 (10th Cir.) (§ 3582(c)(2) depends on Commission listing and retroactivity)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (§ 3582(c)(2) relief depends on Sentencing Commission making an amendment retroactive)
- Espinoza-Saenz v. United States, 235 F.3d 501 (10th Cir.) (new claims post-§ 2255 are time-barred and treated as successive)