Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03016/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03016-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 3, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RANDY JAY DYKE,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-3016

(D.C. Nos. 2:14-CV-02452-JWL and

2:10-CR-20037-JWL-2)

(D. Kansas)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Before MATHESON, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

This matter is before the court on Randy J. Dyke’s pro se request for a

certificate of appealability (“COA”). Dyke seeks a COA so he can appeal the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or

correct his sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Because Dyke has not “made a

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

court denies his request for a COA and dismisses this appeal.

Following a jury trial, Dyke was convicted of multiple drug counts and a

count of conspiracy to counterfeit currency. United States v. Dyke, 718 F.3d

1282, 1284 (10th Cir. 2013). This court affirmed Dyke’s convictions on appeal. 

Id. at 1294. Dyke thereafter filed the instant § 2255 motion asserting his trial

Appellate Case: 15-3016 Document: 01019469495 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 1 
counsel was ineffective in failing to: (1) review with him certain video and audio

evidence prior to trial; (2) call witnesses on his behalf; (3) insist on a voluntary

intoxication instruction and adequately argue that impairment to the jury; and (4)

present mitigation evidence at the sentencing hearing. Dyke also asserted he was

prejudiced by the cumulative impact of these alleged errors. In a thorough order,

the district court rejected Dyke’s claims of ineffective assistance, concluding they

were entirely without merit. In particular, the district court concluded as follows:

(1)(a) any alleged omissions from the recorded evidence would have gone to the

weight of that evidence not its admissibility and, in any event, (b) Dyke had

ample opportunity to inform counsel at trial about alleged omissions from the

recorded evidence but did not do so; (2) the testimony of the omitted witnesses

was not meaningfully related to the contested issues at trial; (3) the record made

clear a voluntary intoxication instruction was not appropriate, see, e.g., Dyke, 718

F.3d at 1293-94, and the additional evidence Dyke asserts his counsel should have

presented at trial would not have changed the result; and (4) counsel’s

performance during the sentencing phase was not deficient, as demonstrated by

the fact Dyke received a downward variant sentence.

The granting of a COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to Dyke’s appeal

from the denial of his § 2255 motion. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003). To be entitled to a COA, Dyke must make “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make the requisite

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3016 Document: 01019469495 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 2 
showing, he must demonstrate “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for

that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different

manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to

proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336 (quotations omitted). In evaluating

whether Dyke has satisfied his burden, this court undertakes “a preliminary,

though not definitive, consideration of the [legal] framework” applicable to each

of his claims. Id. at 338. Although Dyke need not demonstrate his appeal will

succeed to be entitled to a COA, he must “prove something more than the absence

of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith.” Id.

Having undertaken a review of Dyke’s appellate filings, the district court’s

order, and the entire record before this court pursuant to the framework set out by

the Supreme Court in Miller-El, we conclude Dyke is not entitled to a COA. The

district court’s resolution of Dyke’s § 2255 motion is not reasonably subject to

debate and the issues he seeks to raise on appeal are not adequate to deserve

further proceedings. In so concluding, this court has nothing to add to the cogent

analysis set out in the district court order dated December 22, 2014. Accordingly,

this court DENIES Dyke’s request for a COA and DISMISSES this appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-3016 Document: 01019469495 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 3