|UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,||No. 01-6116
(D.C. No. 00-CV-1299-T)
Second, Dickerson argues that his sentence was enhanced based on a crime not charged by the grand jury. He contends that he was sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), but that he pled guilty only to a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2). Dickerson does not explain this assertion or offer facts in support, but he may be referring to the calculation of his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8. If so, this court rejected the argument on direct appeal, see United States v. Dickerson, 195 F.3d 1183, 1189-90 (10th Cir. 1999), and Dickerson offers no reason to question that ruling.
Third, he argues ineffective assistance of counsel. He does not offer any reason why the district court erred in finding this claim meritless, and we can detect none.
Dickerson's application for a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
*.After examining appellant's brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.