Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06097/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06097-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STEVEN DEWAYNE JENKINS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-6097

(W.D. Oklahoma)

(D.C. Nos. 5:14-CV-01087-HE and 

5:12-CR-00118-HE-1)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

Before, HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Defendant Steven Jenkins seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the 

denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (requiring COA to 

appeal denial of motion under § 2255). He is entitled to a COA only if he “has made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). 

 In district court Defendant raised four grounds for relief: ineffective assistance of 

trial counsel in the investigation of this case, a conflict of interest of his trial counsel, 

ineffective assistance of trial counsel at sentencing, and ineffective assistance of appellate 

counsel for failing to raise the three prior claims of ineffective trial counsel. He later 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

August 21, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-6097 Document: 01019479051 Date Filed: 08/21/2015 Page: 1 
2 

added an additional claim in anticipation of a decision by the United States Supreme 

Court in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). 

 In this court Defendant raises only his claim based on Johnson. But Johnson is 

irrelevant to his prosecution and sentence. Johnson held that the residual clause of the 

Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally 

vague. See Johnson 135 S. Ct. at 2563. True, Defendant was sentenced under the 

ACCA. But the sentence imposed on Defendant was not based on the voided residual 

clause. Rather, his ACCA enhancement was under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A). See United 

States v. Jenkins, 535 F. App’x 720, 721 (10th Cir. 2013) (sentence enhancement based 

on prior convictions for various drug offenses). 

 It is obvious that Johnson can provide no relief to Defendant. We DENY his 

request for a COA and dismiss the appeal. We GRANT his request to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

 Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-6097 Document: 01019479051 Date Filed: 08/21/2015 Page: 2