United States v. Calabaza , 158 F. App'x 968 ( 2005 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 14, 2005
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 04-2238
(D.C. Nos. CV-04-0854 MV/RHS and
v.
CR-00-1081 MV)
(D. N.M.)
THOMAS EDWARD CALABAZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Thomas Edward Calabaza, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, requests a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255petition. For substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court, we
DENY Calabaza’s request for a COA and DISMISS.
Calabaza challenged his conviction for second degree murder in the court
below by bringing a motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. He asserted that new
evidence has been uncovered that would produce a different result if a new trial
were held. Accordingly, the district court construed this motion as a motion for a
new trial. “Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which authorizes
motions for new trial, applies only to cases in which a trial, either to the court or
to a jury, has taken place.” United States v. Lambert, 603 F.2d 808, 809 (10th
Cir. 1979) (emphasis in original). Because Calabaza was convicted following a
guilty plea, the district court denied the Rule 33 motion. The district court further
held that although the motion invokes 28 U.S.C. § 2255, it would, like this court
in Lambert, “decline to consider sua sponte the [Rule 33] motion as one pursuant
to § 2255.” Id. at 809 n.3. Calabaza’s subsequent request for a COA was
summarily denied.
The district court correctly ruled that a Rule 33 motion is a legally incorrect
vehicle for challenging a guilty plea. Moreover, Calabaza’s request for a COA
must be denied because a § 2255 petition was not properly before the district
court. Thus, we do not have the denial of a habeas petition before us to consider
on appeal. Finally, even if the district court construed this pro se filing liberally,
see Hall v. Scott, 292 F.3d 1264, 1266 (10th Cir. 2002), and converted Calabaza’s
Rule 33 motion into a § 2255 petition, the petition would nevertheless be time-
barred under the one-year limitation period of § 2255 because final judgment was
entered in this proceeding more than four years ago. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(1).
Calabaza’s application for a COA is therefore DENIED and the case is
-2-
DISMISSED. Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-