Opinion
11-20031-01-JWL
09-24-2024
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Juan Manuel Cortez-Diaz, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
HON. JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM, United States District Judge.
A jury convicted defendant of several drug offenses stemming from his role in an interstate methamphetamine operation. Based on the weight and purity of the methamphetamine, along with leadership-role and drug-house enhancements, defendant's advisory guideline sentence was life imprisonment. In February 2013, the district judge assigned to this case at the time imposed a life sentence and the Circuit affirmed that decision. United States v. Cortez-Diaz, 565 Fed.Appx. 741, 742 (10th Cir. 2014).
In August 2024, defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment or to amend the judgment and to appoint counsel. In his motion for relief from judgment, defendant expressly relied on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). The court dismissed the motion as to Rule 60(b) for lack of jurisdiction and denied the motion as to Rule 59(e) as untimely filed. The court also denied defendant's motion to appoint counsel. This matter is now before the court on defendant's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (doc. 219).
Early in this case, defendant was determined to be financially unable to retain counsel. Thus, pursuant to Fed. R. App. 24(a)(3), he is entitled to proceed IFP on appeal unless the court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or that defendant is not otherwise entitled to proceed IFP. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962) (“good faith” in the context of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) is demonstrated when the defendant “seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous,” under an objective standard); McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997) (IFP request on appeal requires demonstration of “the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal). Defendant has not identified any specific issues for appeal. The court's own review of the issues raised in defendant's motion for relief from judgment reveals that any appeal would be frivolous. The court, then, certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant's motion for leave to appeal in formal pauperis (doc. 219) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.