Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma denied Jose Miguel Pacheco’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The court held that three claims were procedurally barred because they had been rejected on direct appeal, and that his ineffective-assistance claim failed because counsel’s performance was not objectively unreasonable. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma
Decision date
April 6, 2026
Docket number
CR-19-00073-002-RAW; CV-24-359-RAW
Disposition
denied
Questions Presented
- Whether Pacheco's challenges to the organizer/leader enhancement, drug-quantity calculation, and length of sentence were procedurally barred because they had been resolved on direct appeal.
- Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by allegedly failing to argue on Pacheco's behalf.
- Whether Pacheco was entitled to a certificate of appealability.
Holdings
- Claims disposed of on direct appeal generally may not be considered on collateral attack under § 2255 absent an intervening change in circuit law. Because the Tenth Circuit had rejected Pacheco's challenges and he identified no intervening change in law, Grounds One, Two, and Three were procedurally barred.
- Pacheco failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not show that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Counsel objected to the presentence report, sought a downward variance, and advocated at sentencing.
- A certificate of appealability should not issue because Pacheco failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and did not show that reasonable jurists would debate the procedural or merits determinations.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…