United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM, District Judge.
Defendant Alejandro Zamora-Solorzano pled guilty to conspiracy with intent to distribute methamphetamine and using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking felony. The court sentenced Mr. Zamora-Solorzano to 210 months imprisonment on the methamphetamine charge and 60 months imprisonment on the firearms charge, to run consecutively. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the sentence on direct appeal. United States v. Zamora-Solorzano, 528 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2008). In 2010, this court denied Mr. Zamora-Solorzano's amended motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and his subsequent motion to reconsider the denial of the motion to vacate. Thereafter, the Circuit denied Mr. Zamora-Solorzano's request for a certificate of appealability to challenge this court's denial of his amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Zamora-Solorzano, 387 Fed.Appx. 848 (10th Cir. July 16, 2010).
More than four years later, Mr. Zamora-Solorzano has now filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief (doc. 166) from the court's order denying his § 2255 petition. According to Mr. Zamora-Solorzano, relief is justified because the court denied the § 2255 petition on the grounds that Mr. Zamora-Solorzano failed to file a reply to the government's response to the petition when, according to Mr. Zamora-Solorzano, he did not receive a timely copy of the government's response because the government deliberately mailed that response to the incorrect address. The motion is denied. Even assuming the truth of Mr. Zamora-Solorzano's allegations concerning the mailing and receipt of the government's response to his § 2255 petition, he is not entitled to relief from the court's order denying that petition. The court denied Mr. Zamora-Solorzano's § 2255 petition on the merits and Mr. Zamora-Solorzano's failure to file a timely reply brief to the government's response had no bearing whatsoever on the court's denial of the petition. Moreover, Mr. Zamora-Solorzano has not shown or even suggested that the substance of his reply brief would have affected the court's resolution of the § 2255 petition in any respect.
Because Mr. Zamora-Solorzano has not shown that the §2255 proceedings were flawed in any respect, he is not entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 60(b). See In re Pickard, 681 F.3d 1201, 1206 (10th Cir. 2012) (successful movant in a true Rule 60(b) motion must assert "that he did not get a fair shot in the original § 2255 proceeding because its integrity was marred by a flaw that must be repaired in further proceedings").
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT Mr. Zamora-Solorzano's motion for relief pursuant to Rule ...