Case ID: f-appx_594/html/0554-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lindsey Kent SPRINGER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-5109.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Feb. 25, 2015.
    Frank Phillip Cihlar, Esq., Gregory Victor Davis, Charles Anthony O’Reilly, Alexander Patrick Robbins, Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, Jeffrey Andrew Gallant, Office of the United States Attorney, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Lindsey K. Springer, Anthony, NM, pro se.
    Before HARTZ, McKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

Appellant seeks a certificate of appeala-bility to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition.

In 2010, Appellant was convicted on several tax evasion charges and sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. We affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal. United States v. Springer, 444 Fed.Appx. 256 (10th Cir.2011). Appellant then filed the instant § 2255 petition, in which he raised seventy-six grounds for relief. The district court dismissed the majority of these grounds as procedurally barred, then concluded that each of the remaining grounds failed on the merits.

We have thoroughly reviewed the appellate record and Appellant’s filings on appeal, as well as the applicable legal standards. Having done so, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the district court’s comprehensive orders disposing of this case. We accordingly DENY Appellant’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. We DENY Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. All other pending motions are likewise DENIED. 
      
       This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.