01-5204 -- U.S. v. Williams -- 08/28/2002

(11894 bytes)

(6823 bytes)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

JEFFREY WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 01-5204

(D.C. Nos. 01-CV-12-C,

97-CR-171-C)

(N.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT^(*)

Before HENRY, and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant Jeffrey Williams seeks to appeal from the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. To proceed on appeal before this court, appellant must obtain a certificate of appealability (COA), see id. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Appellant sought a COA from the district court, which request was denied. Appellant reurges that motion here. A COA will not issue unless appellant makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Id. § 2253(c)(2). He can make this showing by demonstrating that the issues he seeks to raise are debatable among jurists of reason or deserving of further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Appellant seeks to raise six issues on appeal, all based on claims of ineffective assistance of both retained and appointed counsel in representing him on federal drug-related charges. Construing appellant's pro se pleadings liberally, see Cummings v. Evans, 161 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 1998), and after careful consideration of the proposed issues in light of applicable law, we conclude appellant has not met the standards for issuance of a COA.

Appellant's motion for a COA is DENIED and this appeal is DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby

Senior Circuit Judge

FOOTNOTES
Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.

^*. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.

(11894 bytes)

(6823 bytes)

Comments to: WebMaster, ca10 [at] washburnlaw.edu.
Updated: August 29, 2002.
HTML markup © 2002, Washburn University School of Law.
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2002/08/01-5204.htm.