Mario Arazola-Galea v. United States ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                      FOR PUBLICATION
    
        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    
    
     MARIO KELBIA ARAZOLA-GALEA,                       No. 16-73574
                          Petitioner,
    
                          v.                              OPINION
    
     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                          Respondent.
    
    
            Application to File Second or Successive Petition
                        Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
    
                    Submitted November 15, 2017*
                      San Francisco, California
    
                        Filed December 12, 2017
    
      Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit
       Judges, and William E. Smith,** Chief District Judge.
    
                      Opinion by Judge Rawlinson
    
    
    
    
        *
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
        **
           The Honorable William E. Smith, Chief United States District
    Judge for the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
    2             ARAZOLA-GALEA V. UNITED STATES
    
                                SUMMARY***
    
    
                              28 U.S.C. § 2255
    
        Denying an application for authorization to file a second
    or successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate
    a sentence, the panel held that Mathis v. United States, 136 S.
    Ct. 2243 (2016), which clarified application of the categorical
    analysis to the Armed Career Criminal Act, did not establish
    a new rule of constitutional law.
    
    
                                  COUNSEL
    
    Tara K. Hoveland, South Lake Tahoe, California, for
    Petitioner.
    
    Karla Hotis Delord, Assistant United States Attorney; Krissa
    M. Lanham, Deputy Appellate Chief; Elizabeth A. Strange,
    Acting United States Attorney; United States Attorney’s
    Office, Phoenix, Arizona; for Respondent.
    
    
    
    
        ***
            This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
    been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
               ARAZOLA-GALEA V. UNITED STATES                  3
    
                            OPINION
    
    RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge:
    
        Mario Arazola-Galea is a native and citizen of Honduras
    who has been living in the United States since at least 2000.
    In 2013, Arazola-Galea was arrested by border patrol agents
    in Arizona and ordered detained on a felony complaint.
    Arazola-Galea pled guilty to an Information charging him
    with re-entry of a previously removed alien in violation of
    8 U.S.C. § 1326. Arazola-Galea also admitted a violation of
    his supervised release from a prior conviction. Investigation
    revealed that Arazola-Galea had previously been deported
    after a felony conviction for possession of a controlled
    substance in violation of Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.)
    § 18-18-405(1). The district court determined that the
    Colorado conviction was for a drug trafficking offense as
    defined under U.S.S.G. §2L1.2(b)(1)(A), and sentenced
    Arazola-Galea to 70 months’ imprisonment.
    
        Arazola-Galea timely filed a direct appeal, which this
    Court dismissed based on the valid appellate waiver in
    Arazola-Galea’s plea agreement. Arazola-Galea then filed a
    motion to vacate the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
    arguing that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was
    violated and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to
    enhance his sentence without conducting a jury trial. The
    district court dismissed the motion with prejudice based upon
    the plea waiver. Arazola-Galea filed a subsequent motion for
    authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition,
    arguing that Johnson v. United States, 
    135 S. Ct. 2551
     (2015)
    entitled him to retroactive relief from his sentence. We
    denied the motion, determining that the holding in Johnson
    was not implicated.
    4           ARAZOLA-GALEA V. UNITED STATES
    
        Months later, Arazola-Galea filed the present motion for
    authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition.
    Arazola-Galea argues that, in light of the Supreme Court’s
    holding in Mathis v. United States, 
    136 S. Ct. 2243
     (2016),
    the sentencing enhancement applied to his Colorado
    conviction for possession of a controlled substance was
    improper because his conviction was for an offense broader
    than the generic offense described in the federal definition of
    a drug trafficking offense in U.S.S.G. §2L1.2(a) and (b). We
    deny Arazola-Galea’s application.
    
        Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
    (AEDPA), a petitioner may file a second or successive
    petition for a writ of habeas corpus if we certify that the claim
    is based upon “[1] a new rule, [2] of constitutional law,
    [3] made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the
    Supreme Court, [4] that was previously unavailable.”
    28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A).
    
        The sole issue we must decide is whether Arazola-Galea’s
    application to file a second or successive habeas petition can
    survive “the stringent standard” set forth in AEDPA that
    generally prohibits such filings. See Goodrum v. Busby,
    
    824 F.3d 1188
    , 1193 (9th Cir. 2016). Arazola-Galea argues
    that his application satisfies this stringent standard because
    Mathis articulated a new constitutional rule that retroactively
    invalidates the sentencing enhancement applied on the basis
    of his Colorado conviction.
    
        We disagree. Mathis does not establish a new rule of
    constitutional law; rather, it clarifies application of the
    “categorical” analysis to the Armed Career Criminal Act
    (ACCA). See Mathis, 136 S. Ct. at 2251 (resolving the case
    on the basis of the Court’s “longstanding principles,” and
                ARAZOLA-GALEA V. UNITED STATES                    5
    
    explaining that Taylor v. United States, 
    495 U.S. 575
     (1990)
    “set out the essential rule governing ACCA cases more than
    a quarter century ago”). Our subsequent decisions have
    confirmed the notion that Mathis is a clarification of existing
    rules rather than a new rule itself. See, e.g., United States v.
    Martinez-Lopez, 
    864 F.3d 1034
    , 1039 (9th Cir. 2017)
    (“Mathis did not change the rule stated in Descamps [v.
    United States, 
    570 U.S. 254
     (2013)]; it only reiterated that the
    Supreme Court meant what it said when it instructed courts
    to compare elements.”); United States v. Robinson, 
    869 F.3d 933
    , 936 (9th Cir. 2017) (“To determine whether a
    defendant's prior conviction is a crime of violence under the
    Guidelines, we apply the categorical approach first outlined
    in Taylor v. United States, 
    495 U.S. 575
     (1990), and later
    clarified in [Descamps] and [Mathis]. . . .”).
    
        We now join our sister circuits in definitively holding that
    Mathis did not establish a new rule of constitutional law. See
    Washington v. United States, 
    868 F.3d 64
    , 66 (2d Cir. 2017)
    (“[A]lthough the Mathis Court noted that its ACCA [Armed
    Career Criminal Act] interpretation had been based in part on
    constitutional concerns, . . . those concerns did not reflect a
    new rule, for Taylor set out the essential rule governing
    ACCA cases more than a quarter century ago.”) (citation
    and internal quotation marks omitted); In re Lott, 
    838 F.3d 522
    , 523 (5th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that Mathis did not “set
    forth new rules of constitutional law that have been made
    retroactive to cases on collateral review”) (citations omitted);
    In re Conzelmann, 
    872 F.3d 375
    , 376–77 (6th Cir. 2017)
    (same); Dawkins v. United States, 
    829 F.3d 549
    , 551
    (7th Cir. 2016) (explaining that Mathis “did not announce” a
    rule of constitutional law; “it is a case of statutory
    interpretation”); In re Hernandez, 
    857 F.3d 1162
    , 1164 (11th
    Cir. 2017) (same).
    6          ARAZOLA-GALEA V. UNITED STATES
    
       Arazola-Galea’s application for authorization to file a
    second or successive habeas petition is DENIED.
    

Document Info

DocketNumber: 16-73574

Filed Date: 12/12/2017

Modified Date: 12/12/2017