Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03271/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03271-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tijuan A. Lee
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

TIJUAN A. LEE, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-3271 

(D.C. Nos. 2:14-CV-02368-KHV and 

2:10-CR-20128-KHV-1) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, HOLMES, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Tijuan Lee pled guilty to conspiring to manufacture, possess with intent to 

distribute, and distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(iii). He received a 235-month sentence. 

After his direct appeal proved unsuccessful, Lee sought relief under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255. The district court overruled his motion and denied his request for a certificate 

of appealability (COA). 

Proceeding pro se,1

 Lee asks us for a COA so he can appeal the district court’s 

denial of his § 2255 motion. But we may issue a COA only if Lee “demonstrate[s] 

 *

 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

March 4, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-3271 Document: 01019581138 Date Filed: 03/04/2016 Page: 1 
2 

that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of [his] 

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000). Lee hasn’t made that showing here. 

In his application, Lee first asserts the trial court erred in refusing to let him 

withdraw his plea. But a panel of this court squarely rejected that argument in Lee’s 

direct appeal. See United States v. Lee, 535 F. App’x 677, 680-81 (10th Cir. 2013) 

(unpublished). And “[a]bsent an intervening change in the law of a circuit, issues 

disposed of on direct appeal generally will not be considered on a collateral attack by 

a motion pursuant to § 2255.” United States v. Prichard, 875 F.2d 789, 791 (10th Cir. 

1989). 

In a related argument, Lee asserts trial counsel was ineffective in failing to cite 

certain authority in support of his request to withdraw his plea. We decline to address 

that assertion because Lee didn’t present it to the district court. See United States v. 

Viera, 674 F.3d 1214, 1220 (10th Cir. 2012). For the same reason, we decline to 

address Lee’s argument that the prosecutor perpetrated a fraud on the trial court. 

Next, Lee argues his sentence is illegal and that appellate counsel was 

ineffective in failing to argue as much on direct appeal. The district court rejected 

these arguments, noting Lee waived his right to appeal from or collaterally attack his 

sentence as part of his plea deal. Lee cursorily suggests the district court erred in 

 1

 Because Lee proceeds pro se, we liberally construe his filings and apply a more 

forgiving standard than we apply to attorney-drafted filings. Garrett v. Selby Connor 

Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). But we won’t act as his advocate. 

Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Appellate Case: 15-3271 Document: 01019581138 Date Filed: 03/04/2016 Page: 2 
3 

enforcing the appeal waiver because he received ineffective assistance of trial 

counsel. But the district court squarely rejected this assertion too, and Lee makes no 

effort to “demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s 

assessment” on that point to be “debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Nor 

does Lee make any effort to demonstrate reasonable jurists would reach that 

conclusion about the district court’s assessment of his claim that trial counsel was 

ineffective in failing to investigate and prepare for sentencing. Accordingly, we deny 

Lee’s request for a COA and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and we 

dismiss the appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-3271 Document: 01019581138 Date Filed: 03/04/2016 Page: 3