* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 11 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. LA RONDA CRAWFORD,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-3349 (Dist. of Kansas) (D.C. No. 97-3088-DES)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

BeforeBALDOCK , EBEL , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this three-judge panel has unanimously determined that oral argument wouldnot be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Petitioner’s request to submit the case on the briefs is granted, and the case is ordered submitted without oral argument

.1 Section 841(b)(1)(A) provides that a person with a prior felony drug

offense who is convicted of violating section 841 “ shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 20 years an d not more than life imprisonment.” -2- This case is before the court on La Ronda Crawford’ s pro se motions for a certificate of appealability and motion for leave t o proceed on appeal in forma pauperis . Crawford’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is well taken and is therefore granted. Nevertheless, because Cr awford has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, we deny her request for a certificate of appealability and dismiss this appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), (2). Crawford brought this § 2255 petition before the di strict court on March 1, 1997. As grounds for the petition, Crawford allege d that her attorney provided ineffective assistance in the following two particu lars: (1) he failed to inform her that she had the right to appeal her guilty plea; and (2) he failed to intervene when her silence was used against her at her sentencing hearing. In addition, Crawford claimed her sentence was improperly enhanced for ob struction of justice and she was improperly sentenced to a 240 month term of imp risonment pursuant to the recidivist language of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). 1 The district court denied Crawford’s petition on the following grounds: (1) h er claims of ineffective assistance were “without merit”; (2) the enhancement for obstruction of justice played no part in Crawford’s sentence because the d istrict court ultimately2 The district court also noted that, contrary to Crawford’s assertions, the

obstruction of justice enhancement did not affect the availability of “safety valve” relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. Because Crawford ha d six criminal history points, the “safety valve” provision was not applicable to her sentence. U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(1). -3- sentenced Crawford to the statutorily required minimum sentence; 2and (3) Crawford’s prior state felony drug conviction was aproper predicate felony for purposes of the enhanced recidivist minimum mandato ry under this court’s decision in United States v. Short , 947 F.2d 1445, 1459-60 (10th Cir. 1991). Crawford is not entitled to appeal the district court’s denial of her § 2255 petition unless this court grants her a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Crawford is entitled to such a cert ificate only if she can make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). She can make such a showing by demonstrating that the i ssues raised are debatable among jurists, that a court could resolve the issue s differently, or that the questions deserve further proceedings. Barefoot v. Estelle , 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n. 4 (1983). Upon de novo review of Crawford’s application for a certificate of appealability and appellate brief, the district cou rt’s Order, and the entire record on appeal, this court concludes that Crawford has f ailed to demonstrate that the district court’s resolution of her claims relating to the obstruction of justice enhancement and minimum mandatory sentence is debat able or is reasonably-4-

subject to a different outcome on appeal to this co urt. Furthermore, although the district court’s resolution of Crawford’s ineffecti ve assistance claims is summary, those claims are not deserving of further proceedin gs in this court. Crawford’s petition, judged charitably, contains nothing more than vague and conclusory allegations of ineffectiveness. It clearly fails t o allege any concrete prejudice flowing from the actions of her trial counsel as required under Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 694-95 (1984). Because Crawford ha s failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constituti onal right, this court DECLINES Crawford’s request for a certificate of appealabil ity and DISMISSES this appeal. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge