Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-05135/USCOURTS-ca10-07-05135-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darryl E. Montgomery
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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 consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 8, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 07-5135

v. (N.D. Oklahoma)

DARRYL E. MONTGOMERY,

Defendant - Appellant.

(D.C. No. CV-04-354-TCK-FHM)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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.

In this pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action, Darryl E. Montgomery seeks a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s denial of his

§ 2255 petition. Montgomery, while in prison serving a life term for first degree

Appellate Case: 07-5135 Document: 0101126181 Date Filed: 02/08/2008 Page: 1
-2-

murder, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to file false tax returns. He argues

he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because his counsel was

ineffective in connection with the entry of his plea and on direct appeal. We deny

his request for a COA and dismiss this appeal.

As indicated, while Montgomery was in state prison serving a life term, he

conspired with several other people to file false income tax returns on behalf of

other inmates without their knowledge or consent in order to receive those

inmates’ tax refunds. The indictment against him alleged a conspiracy between

the dates of July 1, 1995, and February 13, 1999. Montgomery pled guilty to a

single count of conspiracy to file false tax returns for the years 1995 and 1996, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286. He also stipulated to a total intended loss to the

government of $922,504.

Montgomery thereafter filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging,

inter alia, that his plea was coerced and therefore involuntary. He also filed a

motion to disqualify the district court judge. The district court denied

Montgomery’s motions to disqualify and to withdraw his guilty plea, and

thereafter overruled Montgomery’s objections to the Presentence Report (“PSR”),

granted the government’s motion for an upward departure under the United States

Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (“USSG”), and sentenced

Montgomery to 120 months’ imprisonment, to be served consecutively to his life

Appellate Case: 07-5135 Document: 0101126181 Date Filed: 02/08/2008 Page: 2
1

Montgomery actually filed a request for a COA, without an accompanying

brief, which we construed as his opening brief. He then filed an opening brief,

which we construed as a request to file a supplemental brief, which has been

submitted to us for our decision. We grant Montgomery’s motion to file a

supplemental brief. Although Montgomery has also filed a motion for leave to

proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, that motion is moot. The district court

previously determined that Montgomery was financially unable to obtain adequate

defense counsel and the court appointed counsel to represent him in his criminal

case. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a), he may proceed on appeal

in forma pauperis without a redetermination of indigence or further authorization. 

-3-

term of imprisonment. The court also imposed restitution for the actual loss to

the government of $50,912.

Montgomery filed a direct appeal, challenging the denial of his motion to

disqualify, the upward departure and the failure to make written findings

concerning his objections to the PSR. This court affirmed his sentence, but

remanded for the ministerial purpose of having the district court reduce to writing

its findings regarding Montgomery’s objections to the PSR. See Fed. R. Crim. P.

32. Montgomery then filed this § 2255 petition.1

To obtain a COA, Montgomery must make a “substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). In order to meet this

burden, he must demonstrate “that 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.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotation

omitted).

Appellate Case: 07-5135 Document: 0101126181 Date Filed: 02/08/2008 Page: 3
-4-

We have carefully reviewed Montgomery’s pleadings, the district court’s

disposition and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal,

or Montgomery’s filings raises an issue which meets our standard for the grant of

a COA. For substantially the reasons set forth by the district court, we DENY

Montgomery’s request for a COA and DISMISS this appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 07-5135 Document: 0101126181 Date Filed: 02/08/2008 Page: 4