United States v. Jurado-Barajas
670 F. App'x 978
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Umberto Jurado-Barajas is a federal prisoner who pleaded guilty in 2002 to drug-related crimes and was later convicted by a jury of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense; he received a 295-month sentence.
- He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in 2004, which the district court denied; the Tenth Circuit denied a COA on appeal.
- He later obtained a sentence reduction based on a retroactive Sentencing Guidelines amendment.
- In 2016 Jurado-Barajas filed a district-court submission titled “Petition for Writ of Certiorari,” seeking relief under Johnson v. United States; the district court construed it as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Jurado-Barajas did not obtain authorization from the Tenth Circuit to file a successive § 2255 motion and does not dispute that omission on appeal; he raised ineffective-assistance and involuntary-plea claims but did not address the jurisdictional ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider Jurado-Barajas’s filing | Jurado-Barajas sought relief based on Johnson and asserted counsel was ineffective and his plea involuntary | District court: filing is, in substance, a second or successive § 2255 motion and district court lacks jurisdiction without this court’s authorization | The filing was an unauthorized second/successive § 2255 motion; district court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal was correct |
| Whether jurists of reason would debate the procedural ruling (COA standard) | Jurado-Barajas argues merits (ineffective assistance, involuntary plea) without addressing procedural bar | Government argues procedural bar is dispositive and not debatable | Court denied COA because reasonable jurists would not debate that the district court lacked jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Harper v. United States, 545 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2008) (COA requirement for appeals of § 2255 dismissals)
- Hall v. Scott, 292 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2002) (liberal construction of pro se filings)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for COA when dismissal rests on procedural grounds)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (legal basis relied on by petitioner for sentence relief)
- Baker v. United States, 718 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2013) (claims attacking conviction/sentence are treated as § 2255 motions)
- Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011) (successive-motions framework and authorization requirement)
- In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2008) (district courts lack jurisdiction over unauthorized successive § 2255 motions)