United States v. Delgado-Ornelas, No. 17-3053 (10th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, June 23, 2017 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FERNANDO DELGADOORNELAS, No. 17-3053 (D.C. Nos. 6:15-CR-10141-EFM-1 and 6:16-CV-01422-EFM) (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL _________________________________ Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ This appeal involves the denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The threshold issue is whether the defendant has justified a certificate of appealability. We answer “no” and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. This decision requires us to dismiss the appeal. The defendant, Mr. Fernando Delgado-Ornelas, wants to appeal a conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Mr. Delgado was charged in federal court with illegal reentry after removal based on a conviction for an aggravated felony. After conferring with counsel, Mr. Delgado pleaded guilty. The district court accepted the plea and imposed a prison term of 37 months. According to Mr. Delgado, his attorney provided ineffective assistance by promising a lower sentence. The district court rejected this claim, reasoning that the plea colloquy belied the alleged promise and that the alleged ineffectiveness would not have been prejudicial. To appeal this ruling, Mr. Delgado-Ornelas needs a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Such a certificate may issue only if Mr. Delgado-Ornelas has made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Where, as here, the district court has dismissed a petitioner’s § 2255 claim on the merits, the petitioner must show that the district court’s conclusion was subject to reasonable debate. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In our view, the district court’s reasoning is not subject to reasonable debate. As a result, we decline to issue a certificate of appealability. And in the absence of a certificate of appealability, we must dismiss the appeal. Entered for the Court Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
