T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he 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 

### Jan u ary19,2007 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, v. J E F F RE Y D. T E L L I NGHUI S E N,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 3266 (D . K a n .) ( D . C . N o . 0 6 - C V - 3 0 6 3 - J T M)

OR DER * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. J eff r eyD . T el l i nghui s en, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , seeks a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y( C O A ) t hatw oul d al l ow hi m t o appea l fr om t he di s t r 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 . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( B ) . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatM r . T el l i nghui s en has fai l ed t o m ake “ a s 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 , ” w e deny h 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 M r . T el l i nghui s en pl eade d gui l tyt o pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya r es tr i ct ed per s on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) , 924( a) ( 2) . T hi s w as j us tone count i n an ei ght een- counti ndi ctm ent ; the governm entdi s m i s s ed the others event een count s i n excha nge forhi s gui l t ypl ea. H i s pl ea a gr eementi ncl uded thi s appea l w aive r: D efe ndantknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ves anyr i ghtt o appea l or col l at er al l yat t ack a nym att eri n connec t i on w i th thi s pr os ecut i on, convi ct i on and s ent ence . T he defendanti s aw ar e thatT i t l e 18, U . S. C . § 3742 affor ds a defendantt he r i ghtt o appea l t he convi ct i on and s ent ence i m pos ed. B yent er i ng i nt o thi s agr eement , t he d efen d an t kn o w ing lyw aive s an yri g h t t o ap p ea l th e c o n v ict ion o r a s ent ence i m pos ed w hi ch i s w i thi n the gui del i ne r ange de t erm i ned a p p ro p ria te b yth e c o u rt. T h e d e fe n d a n t als o w a iv e s a n yrig h t to c h a llen g e a se n ten c e o r o th e rw ise a ttem p t to m o d if yo r c h a n g e h is s ent ence orm anneri n w hi ch i tw as det erm i ned i n anycol l at er al at t ack, i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i t ed t o, a mot i on br oughtunderT i t l e 28, U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 [ e x c e p ta s l i m i t e d b y Uni t ed Stat es v. C ocke r ham , 237 F .3 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 )] a n d a m o tio n b ro u g h t u n d e r T itl e 18, U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . I n otherw or ds , t he defendantw ai ves t he rig h t to a p p e a l th e se n ten c e im p o se d in th is c a se e x c e p t to th e e x ten t, i f any , t he courtdepart s upw ar ds fr om t he appl i cabl e s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange de t erm i ned byt he court . H ow ever , i f the U ni t ed St at es author i zes i t s r i ghtt o appea l t he s ent ence i m pos ed as author i zed byT i t l e 18, U . S. C . § 3742( b) , t he defendanti s r el eas ed fr om t hi s w ai verand mayappea l t he s ent ence r ece i ved as author i zed b yT it le 18 , U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). R . V ol . I , D oc. 23, at3 ( br acke t s i n or i gi nal ) . T he di s tr i ctcourtconduct ed a tho rou g h p lea c o ll o q u yb efo re a cc ep ti n g M r. T ell ing h u isen ’s gu il typ lea. I t expl ai ned ea ch pr ovi s i on i n depth and gave part i cul aratt ent i on t o the appe al w ai ver . T he courtacc ept ed M r . T el l i nghui s en’ s gui l typl ea onl yaft ers at i s fy i ng-3-

itse lf th a t th e p lea w a s k n o w in g a n d v o lu n tar y . T h e c o u rt th e n se n ten c e d h im to 1 2 0 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. M r . T el l i nghui s en di d notappea l hi s s ent ence . I ns t ead, he fi l ed thi s habea s p e titio n u n d e r § 2 2 5 5 , a lle g in g th a t h e re c e iv e d in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. T he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed hi s pet i t i on, rul i ng thatthe appe al w ai veri n hi s pl ea a g re e m e n t b a rr e d it a s a c o lla te ra l a tta c k o n h is s e n te n c e . 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 rt o r t h is C o u rt fir s t is s u e s a C O A . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( B ) . A C O A w i l l i s s ue “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a s 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 . § 2253( c) ( 2) . T o m ake s uch a sh o w in g , a p e tit io n e r m u st d e m o n stra te th a t “r e a so n a b le ju rists c o u ld d e b a te w hether. . . t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm annerort hat t he 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 fur ther . ” Sl ack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 483–84 ( 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itted). E ven undert he l i ber al s t andar d byw hi ch w e j udge a pro se li ti g an t’ s p le a d in g s , s ee Ledbe t t erv. C i t y of Topeka, Kan. , 3 1 8 F . 3 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2003) , M r . T el l i nghui s en fa i l s t o convi nce us t hatt he di s tr i ctcourts houl d have r es ol ved hi s pet i t i on di ffe r ent l y . T he di s tr i ctcourtempl oy ed the corr ectt hr eepar tt es tw e announc ed i n Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 3 5 9 F . 3 d 1 3 1 5 , 1 3 2 5 (10 th C ir .-4-

2 0 0 4 ) (en b an c), t o d eterm ine w h ethe r th e a p p ell ate w aive r i n M r. T ell ing h u isen ’s pl ea a gr eementbarr ed hi s § 2255 pet i t i on. I tal s o corr ect l ynot ed thata defendant w ith a v a lid a p p e a l w a iv e r m a yb rin g a n in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l cla im onl yw hen the al l eged i neffect i ve as s i s t ance “i s ‘ i n connec t i on w i th the negot i at i on of the w ai ver . ’ ” R . V ol . I , D oc. 26, at2 ( quot i ng Hahn , 359 F. 3d at 1 3 2 7 ). N one of the s even i ns t ance s of i neffect i venes s thatM r . T el l i nghui s en al l eges i n hi s § 2255 pet i t i on m ot i on r el at es t o hi s att orney ’ s negot i at i on of the a p p e a l w a iv e r. T h is s a m e s h o rt c o m in g p la g u e s h is a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l. See A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 4- 17. B eca us e none of thes e gr ounds ar e a pe r m i s s i bl e bas i s for a v o id in g h is a p p e lla te w a iv e r, Hahn , 3 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 7 , n o re a so n a b le ju rist w o u ld debat e w hethert he di s t r i ctcourtpr oper l yr es ol ved hi s habea s pet i t i on. C oncl usi on A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY M r . T el l i nghui s en’ 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