USA v. Mejia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 25-cv-04169-PAB
(Criminal Action No. 24-cr-00301-PAB-1)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff/Respondent,
v.
1. EDWIN MEJIA,
Defendant/Movant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Edwin Mejia’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Docket No. 100]. In his § 2255 motion,
Mr. Mejia appears to challenge his conviction and sentence on grounds that include
ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations. The Court will construe
the motion liberally because Mr. Mejia is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
1991). However, the Court should not be an advocate for a pro se litigant. Hall, 935
F.2d at 1110.
In March 2025, a jury convicted Mr. Mejia on one count of false statement to a
firearms dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). Docket Nos. 63, 84. Mr. Mejia was
sentenced to time served followed by two years of supervised release. Docket No. 84.
Judgment entered on July 30, 2025. Id. On July 30, 2025, Mr. Mejia filed a Notice of
Case No. 1:24-cr-00301-PAB Document 101 filed 12/30/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 3

2
Appeal appealing his judgment and sentence that was transmitted to the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals. Docket Nos. 86, 87. That appeal is pending.
The § 2255 motion is premature because Mr. Mejia has a direct appeal currently
filed in the Tenth Circuit. See United States v. Cook, 997 F.2d 1312, 1319 (10th Cir.
1993) (“Absent extraordinary circumstances, the orderly administration of criminal
justice precludes a district court from considering a § 2255 motion while review of the
direct appeal is still pending.”). Although there is no ipso facto bar to a district court
adjudicating a § 2255 motion during the pendency of an appeal, dual proceedings do
not promote judicial economy. United States v. Prows, 448 F.3d 1223, 1228-29 (10th
Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). Mr. Mejia does not allege any extraordinary
circumstances justifying the Court’s consideration of his § 2255 motion before his
appeal has concluded. Mr. Mejia may refile a § 2255 motion after his appeal is
concluded, if he chooses.
Under Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the
United States District Courts, a “district court must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2), the Court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Such a showing is
made only when “a prisoner demonstrates ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable’
that a constitutional violation occurred, and that the district court erred in its resolution.”
United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability
Case No. 1:24-cr-00301-PAB Document 101 filed 12/30/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 3

3
because Mr. Mejia has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.
The Court also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status will be
denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438
(1962). If Mr. Mejia files a notice of appeal he also must pay the full $605 appellate
filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Docket No. 100] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature. It
is further
ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will issue because defendant has
not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. It is further
ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED without
prejudice to the filing of a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
DATED December 30, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
____	__	__	_________	__	__	__	________	__	__________	____	__	____	__________________________________________________	_____________
Case No. 1:24-cr-00301-PAB Document 101 filed 12/30/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 3