T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s ; nevert hel es s , an or derm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O c t ob e r12,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 4063 v. ( D . of U t ah) KI RK I RV I NG KOS KE L L A,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D . C . N os . 04- C V - 1186- D B and 0 0 - CR - 5 9 4 - J T G)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efo re HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. ** K i rk I rvi ng K oskell a, a fed eral pri soner con vict ed in U t ah, request s a C er t i fi cat e of A ppeal abi l i t y( C O A ) fol l ow i ng tw o di s tr i ctcourtdeni al s of m ot i ons t o v acat e his sent ence u nd er 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5. A s K oskell a m akes his request pro se , w e c o n s tru e h is p le a d in g s lib e ra lly. C um m i ngs v. E vans , 161 F. 3d 610, 613 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) . W e w i l l i s s ue a CO A “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a-2-

s u b s t a n t i a l s h o wi n g o f t h e d e n i a l o f

a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t . ” 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) . F i n d i n g n o c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s we r e d e n i e d M r . Ko s k e l l a , we rejec t h is re q u e st fo r a C O A a n d D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l. I . K i r k I r vi ng K os kel l a pl ed gui l tyt o cons pi r i ng t o defr aud the I nt ernal R e v e n u e S e rv ic e a n d to w ir e f ra u d . Un itedS ta tes v . Ko sk e lla , 118 F. A pp’ x. 422 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) . K os kel l a r ece i ved tw o fi ve- y eart erm s of i ncar cer at i on t o be s erved cons ecut i vel yand w as or der ed t o pay$14, 733, 439. 91 i n r es t i tut i on. I n an ear l i erappea l , w e found the di s t r i ctcourterr ed bydel egat i ng r es pons i bi l i tyfor det erm i ni ng K os kel l a’ s r es t i tut i on paym ents chedul e t o the B ur eau of Pr i s ons and th e P ro b a tio n O ffic e . Id . at423. F u rth e r, w e n o ted th a t th e d istric t co u rt fa iled to or dert he r es t i tut i on be s har ed j oi nt l yand s ever al l yw i th K os kel l a’ s coco n sp ir ators, som ethin g to w h ich th e g o v ern m en t, d istri ct co u rt , an d K o sk ell a’s c o u n s e l h a d a g re e d . Id . a t4 2 3

– 2 4 . T h e g o v e rn me n tc o n c e d e d b o th p o i n t s a n d we r emanded fort he di s t r i ctcour tt o i s s ue a pa ym ents chedul e as w el l as an or deron w h e th e r r e s titu tio n s h o u ld b e jo in t a n d s e v e ra l. Id. A ta J anuary21, 2005 hear i ng, t he di s tr i ctcourtdet erm i ned the r es t i tut i on p a ym e n t s h o u ld b e jo in t a n d s e v e ra l a n d is s u e d a p re lim in a ry p a ym e n t s c h e d u le . T h e p a ym e n t sc h e d u le a n d th e jo in t an d se v e ra l n a tu re o f th e re stitu tio n w e re laid d o w n b yc o u rt o rd e r o n F e b ru a ry2 8 , 2 0 0 5 . S u b se q u e n t to th is o rd e r, K o sk e lla-3-

m a d e n u m e ro u s m o tio n s p u rsu a n t to § 2 2 5 5 , w h ich th e d istric t co u rt d e n ied in s e p a ra te o rd e rs d a te d S e p te m b e r 2 , 2 0 0 5 a n d F e b ru a ry 9 , 2 0 0 6 . II. O n th is re q u e st fo r C O A , h e ra ise s tw o iss u e s: 1 ) th a t h e w a s n o t p ro p e rly r epr es ent ed bycouns el att he J anuary21, 2005 hear i ng, and 2) t hathi s § 2255 m ot i ons w er e notgi ven a pr operhear i ng. A . C ouns elR epr es entat i on K os kel l a fi r s tcont ends t hathi s couns el w i thdr ew i n A pr i l 2004 and had no cont actw i t h K os kel l a form or e than t en mont hs befor e the J anuary21, 2005 hear i ng. H e ar gues t hes e fa ct s demonstr at e deni al of pr operr epr es ent at i on att he hear i ng. H e al s o ar gues couns el r efus ed t o pr es entm ot i ons r egar di ng hi s § 2255 cl ai m s , l eavi ng M r . K os kel l a t o pr es entt he cl ai m s hi m s el f. H e cont ends t hat th e s e tr a n s g re s s io n s a m o u n t to a c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . K os kel l a di r ect s us t o ourunpubl i s hed dec i s i on i n Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Ba r l o w, 1 4 3 F . A p p ’x. 96 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). H e appe ar s t o ar gue, bas ed on B ar l ow , t hat pl ai n err orbyt he di s t r i ctcour ti n del egat i ng the s chedul i ng of r es t i tut i on paym ent s r equi r es r emand forr evi ew of the s ent enci ng deci s i on i t s el f. A tcr i t i cal s ta g e s o f

s u c h a s e n te n c in g re m a n d , K o s k e lla w o u ld h a v e a ri g h t to c o u n s e l. See Uni t ed Stat es v. G or don , 4 F. 3d 1567, 1571 ( 10th C i r . 1993) . B uti n B ar l ow , t her e w as pl ai n err ori n t he ac tual s ent enci ng deci s i on as w el l as t he di s tr i ct cour t ’ s fai l i ng t o s ett he r es t i tut i on s chedul e. W e vac at ed B ar l ow ’ s s ent ence-4-

bas ed on the pl ai n err ort hatoccurr ed i n the under l y i ng s ent enci ng deci s i on, not o n th e fa ilu re to s e t a re s titu tio n s c h e d u le . K os kel l a mi s t akes ourfi ndi ng of pl ai n err orw i th r egar d t o the r es t i tut i on i s s ue i n hi s cas e fora fi ndi ng of pl ai n err orw i th r egar d t o the ent i r etyof the s ent enci ng. W e di d notr ever s e and r emand t he ent i r e s ent enci ng i n Ko sk e lla as w e di d i n B ar l ow . W e onl yr emanded fora det erm i nat i on of j oi ntand s ever al li ab il ityan d an o rde r sett ing fo rth the re sti tuti o n sch ed u le. T h e c o u rt i m pl ement ed eve r yt hi ng r equi r ed byourdeci s i on w i th i t s February28 or derand di d s o i n K os kel l a’ s favor . A l l of K os kel l a’ s cl ai m s ar i s i ng fr om ourdeci s i on w e r e t h e r e fo r e v i n d i c a t e d . W i t h n o e v i d e n c e o f h a r m , w e c a n n o ti d e n t i f y a cons t i tut i onal foul ar i s i ng fr om t he J anuaryhear i ng thatcoul d be r emedi ed th ro u g h g ra n t o f

a C O A . B . He a r i n go n § 2 2 5 5 Cla i ms K os kel l a al s o cl ai m s t he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n deny i ng hi s § 2255 m ot i ons w i t houthear i ng. B uta pr i s oneri s notent i t l ed t o a hea r i ng i f “the mot i on and the fi l es and r ecor ds of the ca s e conc l us i vel ys how thatthe pr i s oneri s ent i t l ed t o no re lief.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . A s p a rt o f h is p lea b a rg a in , K o sk e lla w a iv e d h is § 2 25 5 ap peals . U n d er Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , w e w ill u p h o ld a w a iv e r o f a p p e llate rig h ts w hen thr ee c ondi t i ons ar e met : 1) the di s put ed w ai verfal l s w i thi n the s cope of t he w ai verof appe l l at e r i ght s , 2) t he defendantknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved theW hi l e the di s t r i ctcour tcomm i t t ed err orbynotengagi ng i n a col l oquy 1 w i t h t he defendants peci fi c t o w ai verof the appe l l at e r i ght s , w e fi nd thatunder t he ana l y s i s of Uni t ed Stat es v. E dgar , 348 F. 3d 867, 872 ( 10th C i r . 2003) , t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s err ordi d notaffectK os kel l a’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , s o the w ai ver sta n d s. T h e p lea a g re e m e n t ex p re ss lysta tes th a t K o sk e lla w a iv e s h is rig h t to appea l of § 2255 r el i ef. -5- appel l at e r i ght s , and 3) enfor ci ng the w ai verw oul d notr es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. 359 F. 3d 1315, 1325 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . B as ed on the r ecor d i n thi s cas e, namel yt he defendant ’ s s t at ementi n advanc e of hi s gui l typl ea a s w el l as the col l oquybetw een the di s t r i ctcourtand K os kel l a athi s D ece m ber12, 2000 pl ea hear i ng, i t i s cl ear t hat t he fi r s t t w o condi t i ons ar e m et . N one of the four 1 s i tuat i ons i dent i fi ed byt he Hahn courtas contr i but i ng t o a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce a re p re se n t h e re e ith e r: 1 ) T h e d istric t co u rt d id n o t re lyo n a n im p e rm iss ib le fac t ors uch as r ace , 2) t her e i s no cont ent i on of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el r egar di ng t he w ai ver , 3) t he s ent ence i m pos ed on K os kel l a di d notexce ed the s t atut or ym axi m um , and 4) t he w ai veri s nototherw i s e unl aw ful . K os kel l a’ s pl ea bar gai n w as s uffi ci entt o w ai ve hi s § 2255 appel l at e r i ght s . H i s § 2255 m ot i ons w er e ther efor e notent i t l ed t o a hea r i ng. M r . K os kel l a has s ubs equent l yfi l ed s uppl ement al § 2255 cl ai m s ar gui ng t hatt he fe der al governm entl acke d j ur i s di ct i on, fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a C om m er ce C lau se n e x u s to h is c rim e , an d th a t th e e n tire T itl e 1 8 o f th e U .S . C o d e is uncons t i tut i onal . N otonl ydo t hes e cl ai m s l ack mer i tand/ orr el evanc y , butasG i ven the ade quacyof hi s w ai ver , w e w i l l notent er t ai n anyfur ther§ 2255 2 cl ai m s fr om M r. K oskell a w i t h regards t o h i s charged o ffen ses. -6- t heyal l r el at e t o a § 2255 habe as cl ai m and w e have found M r . K os kel l a has w ai ved such clai m s, he is den i ed C O A on these cl ai m s. 2 Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e D E N Y M r . K os kel l a’ s r eques tforC O A , and h is m o tio n fo r l e a v e to file s u p p le m e n ta l p le a d in g , a n d D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge