T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce 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. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, fo r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### A p ril11,2007 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, N o. 06- 7092 v . ( D . C . N o . 0 6 - C V - 5 1 - R A W) D A R N E L L J A M A R N A S H , (E .D . O k la .)

D e fe n d a n t– A p p e llan t. OR DER * B efor e M c KAY , B RI S CO E , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. In this pro se 28 U . S. C . § 2255 pr i s onerappea l , D efe ndantcont ends t hathe r ece i ved i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el r egar di ng hi s pl ea a gr eementas w el l as ats ent enci ng and on appe al , t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr oneous l yacc ept ed hi s pl ea i n vi ol at i on of R ul e 11 of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e, and thatt he di s t r i ctcour ti m pr oper l yaddr es s ed D efe ndant ’ s obj ect i ons i n vi ol at i on of form er p ro v is io n s o f

R u le 3 2 o f

th e F e d e ra l R u le s o f

C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re . H is c o n v ictio n w a s a ffirm e d o n d ire c t ap p e a l b ya p a n e l o f th is c o u rt in United S t ates v. Nash , 120 Fed. A pp’ x 770 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( unpubl i s hed) , w hi ch a d d re ss e d th e c o n se q u e n c e o f th e a p p e llate w a iv e r in h is p lea a g re e m e n t as w e ll- 2-

as t he l evel of effec t i ve couns el t hatl ed t o hi s know i ng and vol unt arypl ea. T he di s t r i ctcour t , r el y i ng pr edomi nat el yon s t at ement s m ade i n t hatopi ni on and on t he cons equenc es of the appe l l at e w ai verpr ovi s i on, det erm i ned thatD efe ndant w as notent i t l ed t o r el i ef on a nyof hi s cl ai m s and deni ed hi s § 2255 pet i t i on and h is re q u e s t fo r a c e rt ific a te o f a p p e a la b ility (“ C O A ” ). A lth o u g h D e fe n d a n t h a s n o t filed a fo rm a l C O A a p p lica tio n , w e tre a t h is n o tic e o f

a p p e a l a s s u c h . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 22( b) ( 2) . T o obt ai n a ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i t y , Pet i t i onerm us tm ake a “s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a cons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . I n or dert o m eett hi s bur den, Pet i t i onerm us tdemonst r at e “thatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether( or , for t hatm at t er , agr ee that ) t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r ent m a n n e r o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to d e se rv e e n c o u ra g e m e n t to pr ocee d fur t her . ” Sl ack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( quot at i on o m itted). A s an i ni t i al m at t er , w e not e thatt he pane l on di r ectappea l concl uded that D e fe n d a n t k n o w in g ly an d v o lu n ta ri ly en te re d in to th e p le a a g re e m e n t. A ccor di ngl y , D efe ndant ’ s R ul e 11 cha l l enge i s deni ed, as i s hi s cl ai m of in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l b a se d o n th e a lleg e d fa ilu re o f d e fe n se c o u n se l to a d e q u a te ly ad v is e D e fe n d a n t a s to th e p le a a g re e m e n t. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Nol an , 571 F. 2d 528, 530 ( 10t h C i r . 1978) ( not i ng t hatan i s s ue di s pos ed of on di r ectappea l w i l l notbe r econs i der ed on a c ol l at er al at t ack pur s uantt o § 2255- 3-

abs entan i nt erveni ng change i n t he l aw of the ci r cui t ) . A l s o, D efe ndantnever ra ise d h is R u le 3 2 c o n ten tio n o n d ire c t ap p e a l. “[ T ]h e fa ilu re b ya d e fe n d a n t to rai se a non con st i tuti on al i ssue on d i rectapp eal w hen he w as abl e t o d o so or di nar i l yw i l l barcol l at er al r evi ew of thati s s ue underSect i on 2255. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. G at tas , 8 6 2 F .2 d 1 4 3 2 , 1 4 3 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ). D e fe n d a n t h a s fa iled to o v e rc o m e th is b a r. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Tranakos , 968 F. 2d 1225 ( 10t h C i r . 1992) ( t abl e) . T o t he ext entD efe ndant ’ s R ul e 32 ar gum enti s pr edi cat ed on havi ng recei ved i neffect i ve assi st ance o f cou nsel atsent encing, w e ob serve thatdefe nse couns el ats ent enci ng obj ect ed t o cert ai n fac tual as s er t i ons cont ai ned i n t he pr es ent ence r epor t , butt hos e obj ect i ons w er e overrul ed. D efe ndanthas not es t abl i s hed thatcouns el ’ s per for m ance “fe l l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s ” ort hathi s s ent ence w oul d have be en di ffe r entw er e i tnotfort he a lle g e d in e ffe c tiv e n e s s . Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U . S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 8 , 6 9 4 (19 8 4 ). Fi nal l y , D efe ndant ’ s cont ent i on t hathe r ece i ved i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of c o u n s e l o n d ir e c t a p p e a l is w ith o u t m e ri t. S e e Un itedS ta tes v . Ma rtin ez-L o m e li , 86 F. 3d 1167 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) ( t abl e) ( “The m er e fi l i ng of an A nd ers B r i ef c annot form t he bas i s fora cl ai m of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and has no bear i ng on t he r el i ef be i ng s oughtby[D efe ndant ] on t hi s di r ectappea l

— r el i ef f r om t he sen tenc e im p o sed b ythe d istri ct co u rt . ”). W e a g ree w ith the d istri ct co u rt ’s c o n c lu sio n re g a rd in g th e lac k o f m e rito rio u s is su e s a n d , the re fo re , w ith its concl us i on t hatt he Str i cklandt es thas notbeen s at i s fi ed.- 4-

A car eful r evi ew of D efe ndant ’ s br i ef, t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s pos i t i on, and t he r ecor d on appea l , r evea l s not hi ng r ai s i ng an i s s ue thatm eet s ours t andar d for t he gr antof a c er t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y . A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY D efen d an t’ s r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yand D I SM I SS th e a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge