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 p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 (e ff. D e c . 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

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

### Jan u ary11,2007 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 U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. C A Y E T A N O M O R E N O -V A L L E S ,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 4117 ( D . C. N o. 2: 04 - CV - 73 0- TS)

( D . U t ah)

OR DER * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. T h i s i s a t i m e l y pro se § 2255 appea l . T he tr i al courtdeni ed a c er t i fi cat e of a p p e a lab ili ty , an d w e c o n sid e r th e a p p e a l a r e n e w a l o f th e re q u e st fo r a c e rtific a te o f a p p ea l befo re this co u rt . A p p ell an t at tack s h is co n v ict ion fo r i ll eg al reen try aft erdepor t at i on, w hi ch w as aff i r m ed i n a pr i orappea l , as w el l as hi s s ent ence on t w o gr ounds . Fi r s t , A ppel l antcont ends t hathi s couns el w as i neffect i ve for all o w ing a fau ltytr an script of h is de p o rt ati o n h ea ri n g to b e e n tered in the rec o rd att r i al . Second, A ppel l antar gues t hatt he enha ncementof hi s s ent ence w as- 2-

ent er ed i n vi ol at i on of Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , and B la ke ly v. Was hi ngt on , 5 4 2 U . S . 2 9 6 (20 0 4 ). T he tr i al cour trul ed thatt he fa i l ur e t o r ai s e thes e i s s ues on di r ectappea l cons t i tut ed w ai ver s . I n doi ng s o, the courtcons i der ed the exc ept i on bas ed on i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . W e s ee no r eas on t o dupl i cat e her e the tr i al cour t ’ s ext ens i ve and c or r ectanal y s i s of thati s s ue i n hol di ng t hatA ppel l ant fa iled to d e m o n stra te th a t h is “ sta n d b y ” c o u n se l w a s in e ffe c tiv e . W e sim ilarly aff i r m t he tr i al cour t ’ s hol di ng t hatther e w as no fundament al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce, fors ubs t ant i al l yt he r eas ons s etforth i n the tr i al cour t ’ s m emora ndum o p in io n a n d o rd e r. W i t h r es pectt o A ppel l ant ’ s chal l enge t o the s ent ence enhanc ement , the tr i al cour tappr opr i at el yr el i ed on ourdeci s i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. P r i ce , 400 F. 3d 844, 849 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) , i n concl udi ng t hatthe B lakel y and B ookeri s s ues do not appl yr etr oact i vel yt o A ppel l ant ’ s col l at er al att ack on a j udgm entthatw as fi nal w hen B ookerw as i s s ued. In order fort his cou rtt o g ranta cert i fi cat e of a pp eal abil i ty , A pp el l ant m ust m a k e “ a s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . N ot hi ng i n t he appe al m er i t s the gr antof a c er t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i t y . A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY the ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty , and A F F I R M th e d ism iss a l o f A p p e llan t’s § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n , b u t GR ANT A pp el l ant’ s- 3-

pet i t i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a up e ris . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

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