United States v. Prado-Diaz, No. 11-2037 (10th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Tenth Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Tenth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Pro se prisoner Defendant Jose Prado-Diaz petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. Defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced to 108 months' imprisonment on January 12, 2006. The district court entered judgment on January 19, 2006, but mistakenly entered the date as January 19, 2005. The court eventually amended the judgment to correct the date, but according to Defendant, he did not receive notice of the amendment and learned of the change in August 2010 when he requested and received a copy of his criminal case docket. It was then that Defendant tried to file a direct appeal with the Tenth Circuit and the Court dismissed it as untimely. Upon review of Defendant's motion to set aside his sentence, the Tenth Circuit held that "because that decision [was] not even debatably incorrect, we deny Prado-Diaz’s request for a Certificate of Appealability (COA)."
Download PDF
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT September 30, 2011 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSE ANTONIO PRADO-DIAZ, No. 11-2037 (D.C. Nos. 1:10-CV-00931-RB-LFG & 2:04-CR-02502-RB-2) (D. N.M.) Defendant - Appellant. ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DISMISSING APPEAL Before O'BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. Jose Antonio Prado-Diaz, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,1 wants to appeal from the district court s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence. The district court denied the motion as untimely. Because that decision is not even debatably incorrect, we deny Prado-Diaz s request for a Certificate of Appealability (COA). On June 10, 2005, Prado-Diaz pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced to 108 months 1 We liberally construe Prado-Diaz s pro se filings. See Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kan., 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003). imprisonment on January 12, 2006. The district court entered judgment on January 19, 2006, but mistakenly entered the date as January 19, 2005. Prado-Diaz did not immediately appeal.2 On February 5, 2008, the court amended the judgment to reflect the correct date. It did so pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides: After giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct a clerical error in a judgment . . . or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission. According to Prado-Diaz, the court did not provide him notice of the amended judgment. Instead, he first learned of the amendment on July 21, 2010, when he requested and received a copy of his criminal case docket sheet. On August 30, 2010, he attempted to file a direct appeal. We dismissed the appeal as untimely on September 2, 2010. On September 29, 2010, Prado-Diaz filed a § 2255 motion challenging his guilty plea and sentence. The motion was referred to a magistrate judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636, who sua sponte issued an order directing Prado-Diaz to show cause why his § 2255 motion should not be dismissed as untimely as it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations applicable to § 2255 motions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Upon receiving Prado-Diaz s response, the magistrate judge directed the government to brief the timeliness issue. The magistrate judge concluded Prado-Diaz s motion was untimely and recommended dismissal. He determined Prado-Diaz s conviction became final on 2 There is some indication in the record that Prado-Diaz waived his right to appeal in his plea agreement. -2- February 2, 2006, when the time for filing a direct appeal expired. Therefore, the oneyear statute of limitations ended on February 2, 2007, over two years before Prado-Diaz filed his § 2255 motion. The magistrate judge rejected Prado-Diaz s argument that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until July 21, 2010, when he first learned of the amended judgment. The judge determined the amendment to the judgment was to correct a clerical error which did not require notice to the parties under Rule 36 and which did not affect the date of the judgment s finality (February 2, 2006). Finally, he concluded Prado-Diaz had not established grounds for equitable tolling. Over Prado-Diaz s objections, the district court adopted the magistrate judge s recommendation and denied the § 2255 motion. It subsequently denied Prado-Diaz s requests for a COA and to proceed in forma pauperis (ifp) on appeal. A COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to our review of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). We will issue a COA only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When[, as here,] the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In evaluating whether an applicant has satisfied this burden, we undertake a preliminary, though not definitive, consideration of the [legal] framework applicable to each of his -3- claims. Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. In cogent orders, the magistrate judge and district court thoroughly and correctly addressed and resolved the timeliness issue. As no jurist of reason could reasonably debate the correctness of the district court s decision, we DENY the request for a COA and DISMISS this matter. We DENY Prado-Diaz s motion to proceed ifp on appeal. Entered by the Court: Terrence L. O Brien United States Circuit Judge -4-
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.
