Case ID: f-appx_44/html/0443-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRORBY, Senior 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. Jeffrey WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-5204.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Aug. 28, 2002.
    Allen J. Litchfield, John D. Russell, Robert T. Raley, Office of the United States Attorney, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jeffrey Williams U.S.P Beaumont, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HENRY, and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (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. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.