Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01799/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01799-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Patrick T. Buckner, 

Defendant-Movant, 

vs.

United States of America, 

Plaintiff-Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-01799-PHX-FJM

 CR 01-01104-01-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255, which this court denied. (Doc. 32). The Clerk entered judgment dismissing

defendant's action with prejudice. (Doc. 34). Defendant did not request a certificate of

appealability. After he appealed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

remanded the case for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of

appealability.

In defendant's § 2255 motion, he argued that his convictions were contrary to Skilling

v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) and that he was denied the effective assistance of

counsel. Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge,

this court denied his motion. Defendant procedurally defaulted on his claim that honest

services fraud did not encompass his convictions after Skilling and he did not show prejudice

or actual innocence. Any error in jury instructions was harmless because the jury was

instructed on a valid theory of guilt and sufficient evidence was presented to sustain a

Case 2:10-cv-01799-FJM Document 39 Filed 07/24/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

conviction. Finally, the court denied relief based on two instances of purported ineffective

assistance of counsel. The first issue was disposed of on a previous direct appeal and

defendant failed to show prejudice resulting from counsel's actions under his second theory.

An appeal from the final order in a proceeding under § 2255 may not be taken unless

"the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). For claims rejected on the merits, the "petitioner must demonstrate that

reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000).

For claims denied on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability "should issue when

the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find

it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Id. Petitioner has

not met either standard. 

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), IT IS ORDERED DENYING a certificate of

appealability. 

DATED this 23rd day of July, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-01799-FJM Document 39 Filed 07/24/12 Page 2 of 2