T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. 

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

### Ju ly12,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk 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 ,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee, v. L E WI S E L S WORT H M c NAC K,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t. N o. 07- 5034 ( N orthern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma) ( D . C . N os . 06- C V - 00361- H D C and

0 3 - CR- 1 0 2 - HDC)

OR DER * B efor e B RI S CO E , M c KAY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. L ew i s E l s w orth M cN ack, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , seeks a cert i fi cat e of appeal abi l i ty( C O A ) thatw oul d al l ow hi m t o appea l fr om the di s tr i ct c o u rt ’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . See 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(1 )(B ). B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t M r. M c N a c k h a s fa iled to m a k e “ a su b sta n tial sh o w in g o f th e d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t,” w e d e n yh is re q u e s t fo r a C O A a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ).-2- Backg r ound O n S e p tem b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 3 , M r. M c N a c k p lea d e d g u iltyto b a n k ro b b e ryin vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2113( a) . U nderthe pl ea a gr eementM r . M cN ack w ai ved hi s r i ght s t o appea l , i ncl udi ng the r i ghtt o fi l e habe as corpus pet i t i ons under28 U . S. C . § 2255. H e al s o s t i pul at ed thathe w as a ca r eercr i m i nal under§ 4B 1. 1 of the U nit ed S t at es Sen t encing G uidel i nes. O n J anuary6, 2004, M r . M cN ack w as s ent ence d t o 178 m onths i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed bythr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. O n J anuary20, 2004, he fi l ed not i ce of appea l t o the Tenth C i r cui t , des pi t e hi s w ai verof appel l at e r i ght s . C ouns el forM r . M cN ack f i l ed an A nd ers b ri e f, s ee A nders v. C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , as s ert i ng ther e w er e no appe al abl e i s s ues and w i thdr aw i ng fr om the ca s e. W e s ubs equent l yaff i rm ed the convi ct i on and s ent ence . M r . M cN ack then fi l ed a pr o s e § 2255 pet i t i on i n di s tr i ctcourt , w hi ch w a s d e n ie d . H e h a s n o w a p p lie d fo r a C O A in th is C o u rt . D i s cus s i on T he deni al of a mot i on forr el i ef unde r28 U . S. C . § 2255 m aybe appe al ed o n ly if th e d is tr ic t c o u rto r t h is C o u rtfir s t is s u e s a C O A . Id. § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 1 )( B ). A C O A w i l l i s s ue “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade as ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” Id . § 2 2 5 3 (c )( 2 ). T o m a k e s u c h a s h o w in g , a pet i t i onerm us tdemonstr at e that“r eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether. . . the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm annerorthatthe i s s ues-3-

pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d further . ” Slack v . McD ani el , 5 2 9 U . S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 3 -84 (20 0 0 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). M r . M c Na c k r a i s e s two c l a i ms i n h i s a p p l i c a t i o n fo rCOA. F i r s t , h e c l a i ms couns el w as i neffect i ve forr efus i ng t o obj ectt o i nacc ur aci es i n hi s pr es ent ence re p o rt. S e c o n d , h e c o n ten d s th a t h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts w e re v io late d b e c a u se h is p rese n tenc e re p o rtw as in co rrect w h en h e w as se n tenc ed , an d that if i t w ere c o rre c ted , h e w o u ld n o t b e c las sified a s a c a re e r c rim in a l. W e c a n a d d re ss b o th cl ai m s s i m ul t aneous l y . E ven as s um i ng ar guendo ther e i s an i nacc ur acyi n the p re se n ten c e re p o rt, i t w o u ld n o t h a v e a n yim p a c t o n M r. M c N a c k ’s 1 7 8 -m o n th se n ten c e . T h e re fo re , the e x iste n c e o f a n ysu c h in a c c u ra c ya n d th e fa ilu re to o bje c t to it w o u ld a m o u n t a t m o s t to h a rm le s s e rr o r. M r . M cN ack ha s an ext ens i ve hi s t oryof run- i ns w i th the l aw . St art i ng at age 18, he ac cumul at ed overt en convi ct i ons foraut o theft , l ar cenyof aut om obi l e, fai l ur e t o compl y , know i ngl yconce al i ng s t ol en pr operty , pos s es s i on of s t ol en vehi cl e af

t erform erfel onyconvi ct i on, br eaki ng and ent er i ng, bur gl ary , theftby t aki ng, theftbyr ece i vi ng s t ol en pr operty , pos s es s i on of fi r earm aft erfel ony con vict i on , and escape. T he d i stri ctcou rttreat ed tw o o f these co nv i ct i on s, bur gl aryand es cape , as cr i m es of vi ol ence underU . S. S. G . § 2K 2. 1. A s the di s tr i ctcourts t at ed, the pr es ent ence r eportw as corr ect ed af t er s ent enci ng i n one r es pect : t o s how thatM r . M cN ack’ s G eor gi a bur gl arys ent ence s w e re to ru n c o n c u rre n tlyra th e r th a n c o n se c u tiv e ly . M r. M c N a c k c laim s th a t th is-4-

inac cu rac yat sen tenc ing v iolated h is du e p roc ess righ ts. T h is ch an g e, ho w ev er, h a d n o e ffe c to n M r . M c Na c k ’ s i mp e n d i n g s e n t e n c e , a s h e s t i l l r e t a i n s two c o n v ic tio n s fo r v io le n t fe lo n ie s . B u rg la ry is s p e c ific a lly m e n tio n e d in th e G u id e lin e s a s a c ri m e o f v io le n c e . See U. S . S e n t e n c i n g Gu i d e l i n e s M a n u a l § 4 B1 . 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( “ Th e t e rm “ c r i me of vi ol ence ” means anyoffe ns e . . . that. . . i s bur gl ary. . . . ”) . T he G ui del i nes do nots peci fi cal l ycl as s i fyes cape as a vi ol entcr i m e, and i f thi s w er e a que s t i on of fi r s ti m pr es s i on w e mi ghtw el l ques t i on w hetheral l es cape s fal l w i thi n that c a teg o ry . B u t th is a n d o th e r c o u rts h a v e h e ld “ th a t an e sc a p e c o n v ictio n ‘b yits natur e . . . i s pr oper l ychar act er i zed a s a cr i m e of vi ol ence , ’ ” r egar dl es s of p a rt ic u la r c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Un itedS ta tes v . Mitch e ll , 1 1 3 F .3 d 1 5 2 8 , 1 5 3 3 (1 0 th C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng Uni ted States v. G os l i ng , 3 9 F . 2 d 1 1 4 0 , 1 1 4 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 )) . A ccord, Uni ted States v. G ay , 251 F. 3d 950, 952, 954- 55 ( 11th C i r . 2001) (c iti n g c a se s f

ro m th e 5 th , 6 th a n d 8 th C irc u its a g re e in g w ith th is ru le) . Q u ite si m ply , M r. M cN ack’s coun sel did not obj ectt o the defen dan t ’s cl assi fi cat i on as a ca ree r crim inal b ec au se su ch an o bjecti o n w o u ld h av e b ee n fu ti le. W e the refo re c o n c lu d e th a t M r. M c N a c k h a s fa iled to m a k e a “ su b sta n tial sh o w in g ” th a t h is Si xth A m endmentordue pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed.-5- C oncl usi on W e DE NY M r . M cN ack’ s r eques tfora C O A and D I SM I SS th is a p p e a l. E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge