Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-03059/USCOURTS-ca10-16-03059-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcus L. Quinn
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 8, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARCUS L. QUINN,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-3059

(D.C. Nos. 2:15-CV-02659-KHV and 

2:10-CR-20129-KHV-3)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before KELLY, HOLMES, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

Defendant-Appellant Marcus Quinn, a federal inmate appearing pro se,

seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) allowing him to appeal from the district

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

his sentence, as well as the court’s overruling of his motion to amend his § 2255

motion to add additional claims. United States v. Quinn, 2016 WL 777923 (D.

Kan. Feb. 26, 2016). We deny a COA and dismiss the appeal. 

Mr. Quinn was convicted of ten counts related to a cocaine drug conspiracy

and sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment. This court affirmed on direct

appeal. United States v. Brooks, 736 F.3d 921 (10th Cir. 2013). Mr. Quinn

subsequently filed a § 2255 motion, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and

Appellate Case: 16-3059 Document: 01019653453 Date Filed: 07/08/2016 Page: 1 
appellate counsel. He later filed an Amended § 2255, which the district court

construed as a motion to amend. The court overruled his § 2255 motion,

overruled the motion to amend, and denied a COA. Mr. Quinn timely appeals.

For a COA to issue, the applicant must make “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To satisfy this standard,

Mr. Quinn 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 (2000). Where the district court’s denial is based

upon a procedural ground, the movant also must demonstrate that the district

court’s procedural ruling was debatable or wrong. Id.

In his request for a COA, Mr. Quinn argues that the jury should have been

given a special verdict form for drug quantity based upon Alleyne v. United

States, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). But we have rejected the idea that

Alleyne applies to sentencing under the advisory guidelines that does not involve

increasing a mandatory minimum. United States v. Cassius, 777 F.3d 1093,

1097–98 (10th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, Mr. Quinn has not met the standard for

the grant of a COA on this issue.

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 16-3059 Document: 01019653453 Date Filed: 07/08/2016 Page: 2 
For substantially the reasons given by the district court, Quinn, 2016 WL

777923, we DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal. 

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 16-3059 Document: 01019653453 Date Filed: 07/08/2016 Page: 3