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

### D e c e m b e r20,2006 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 , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. A L B E R T E A R L B O L D E N , J R ., D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 6192 ( D . C . N os . C R - 99- 59- L and CI V- 0 3 - 3 1 4 - L) (D .N .M .)

OR DER DENYI NG A CERTI FI CATE OF APPE ALABI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. A l bertE arl B olden, a fed eral pri soner r epresent ed b ycou nsel , request s a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili ty(“ C O A ” ) to a p p e a l th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is 28 U . S. C . § 2255 habea s pet i t i on. Fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons s etforth by the di s tr i ctcourt , w e DE NY a C O A and D I SM I SS . B ol den w as char ged bys uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entw i th one countof cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne bas e ( “cr ack” ) i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846, o n e c o u n t o f

m a in tain in g a p lac e fo r th e p u rp o se o f d istrib u tin g a n d u sin g c ra c k in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 856( a) ( 1) , thr ee c ount s of di s tr i but i ng cr ack i n vi ol at i on o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ), o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n o f

c ra c k w ith in ten t to d istrib u te in v io latio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ), o n e c o u n t o f b e in g a fe lo n inA C O A m aybe i s s ued “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade as ubs t ant i al 1 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.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). T h is r equi r es B ol den t o s how “thatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether( or , forthat m att er , agr ee that ) the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm anneror thatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fu rth er.” S lack v . M cD an iel , 5 2 9 U . S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ) (qu o tat ion s o m itted). B eca us e the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed B ol den a CO A , he maynotappea l the di s tr i ct c o u rt ’s d e c is io n a b s e n t a g ra n t o f C O A b yth is c o u rt .

- 2- pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) , and one c ountof ai di ng and abe tt i ng the di s tr i but i on of cr ack i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2 and 21 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1). A juryco n v ict ed B o lden o n all co u n ts, an d the tri al co u rt i m pos ed an a ggr egat e s ent ence of 360 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed bya s i xy e a r t e rm of s up e rvi s e d r e l e a s e . W e a ff i rmed, U ni t e d St a t e s v. Bol de n, 23 F. A pp’ x 900 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( unpubl i s hed) , and the Supr eme C ourtdeni ed B o ld e n ’s p e titio n fo r c e rt io ra ri . B o ld e n v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 3 5 U .S . 9 4 3 (2 0 0 1 ). O n M ar ch 7, 2003, B ol den fi l ed the i ns t ant§ 2255 pet i t i on i n fede r al d istric t co u rt. B e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt rejec ted B o ld e n ’s c laim s a n d d e n ied h is su b se q u e n t ap p lica tio n fo r a C O A , B o ld e n n o w se e k s a C O A f ro m th is c o u rt. 1 H e ra ises sev en claim s in h is ap p li ca ti o n fo r a C O A : ( 1 ) T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s j u ry sel ect i on sy st em viol at es the F i fth an d S i xth A m end m ents ; (2) H i s sent ence m ust be vac at ed underA ppr endi v. N ew J er s ey , 530 U . S. 466 ( 2000) and U ni t ed St at es v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ; ( 3 ) C r i m i n a l i z i n g p o s s e s s i o n o f a fi r e a rm b y a fel on under§ 922( g) ( 1) vi ol at es the C om m er ce Cl aus e of the U . S. C ons t i tut i on; ( 4) Pol i ce offi cer s ’ s ear ch of hi s hom e vi ol at ed the Fourth A m endment ; ( 5)- 3-

S e c tio n 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) v io late s th e E q u a l P ro tec tio n C lau se o f th e F if th A m e n d m e n t; ( 6) T es t i m onyof governm entw i tnes s es w as i nadmi s s i bl e bec aus e the w i tnes s es w ere su bject t o il lega l plea a g ree m en ts; an d (7) T ri al an d ap p ell ate c o u n sel w ere in e ffe c tiv e fo r fa ilin g to ra is e c la im s o n e th ro u g h s ix . B ol den conc edes thatcl ai m s one, tw o, thr ee, and fi ve w oul d fai l on the m erit s b efo re a p an el of this co u rtu n d er c u rren t T en th C ir cu itan d S u p rem e C o u rt p re c e d e n t. N onethel es s , he s eeks a gr antof C O A on thes e cl ai m s t o pr es erve the i s s ues “foranyr evi ew thathe mays eek be y ond the pane l l evel . ” W e r emi nd B ol den thata § 2255 pet i t i on i s notan appr opr i at e vehi cl e t o r ai s e i s s ues that s houl d have be en r ai s ed on di r ectappea l . See U ni t ed St at es v. C ook, 997 F. 2d 13 12 , 13 20 (10th C i r. 19 93 ). F ai l ure t o p res ent an i ssue on d i rectapp eal bars a defe ndantfr om r ai s i ng i ti n a § 2255 mot i on “unl es s he ca n s how caus e exc us i ng hi s pr ocedur al defa ul tand ac tual pr ej udi ce r es ul t i ng fr om the err or s of w hi ch he c o m p lain s, o r c a n sh o w th a t a f u n d a m e n tal m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e w ill o c c u r if

h is c l a i m i s n o ta d d r e s s e d . ” I d . Ar t i c u l a t i n g a d e s i r e t o p r e s e rv e i s s u e s fo rS u p r e me C o u rtre v ie w is in s u ffic ie n t. A lth o u g h B o ld e n a lso a rg u e s th a t th e a lleg e d lyin e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f h is tri al and app el l at e cou nsel excu ses the p rocedu ral defa ultof h i s si x o ther cl ai m s, w e ar e notper s uaded bythi s ar gum ent . Fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons as the d istric t co u rt, w e h o ld th a t B o ld e n ’s in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l cla im fa ilsT hi s courtpr evi ous l yr ej ect ed B ol den’ s j urycomposi t i on cl ai m i n a 2 c o n s o lid a te d c a s e . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . O ra n g e , 4 4 7 F .3 d 7 9 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T he di s tr i ctcourtcons ol i dat ed the j urycomposi t i on i s s ues i n B ol den and O r ange on A ugus t31, 2004.

- 4- a n d th a t h is o th e r c laim s a re w ith o u t m e rit. 2 A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY Bo l d e n ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n fo ra CO A.

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

C arlos F L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge