This order is not bindingprec edent, e x cept under the doc trines of lawof the c ase, res * judic ata , a

nd c oll ateral e stopp e l. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 17, 2006 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 TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 06- 5077 LAWRENCE RI NGER, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C . No s . 0 2 - C V- 8 6 2 - HD C & 9 9 - CR- 7 8 - HDC)

( N . D . O kl ahoma)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e H E N R Y , B R I S C O E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. L a w re n c e R in g e r, a f

e d e ra l p riso n e r, se e k s a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty(C O A ) in or dert o chal l enge the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2255 m ot i on t o vaca t e, s et as i de, orcorr ecthi s s ent ence . B eca us e R i ngerhas 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 , ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) , w e denyhi s r eques tand d is m is s th e m a tte r. I. R i ngerw as convi ct ed bya j uryof tw o count s of bank r obberyi n vi ol at i on of 18 U .S .C . § 2 1 1 3 (a ), an d o n e c o u n t o f c a rry in g a f

ire a rm d u rin g a c rim e o f v io len c e in-2-

vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) . R i ngerw as s ent ence d t o 120 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm enton eac h of the bank r obberycount s , w i th thos e s ent ence s t o run concurr ent l y , and t o 84 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t o n th e f ir e a rm c o u n t, w ith th a t s e n te n c e to ru n c o n s e c u tiv e ly. W e aff i r m ed R i nger ’ s convi ct i ons on di r ectappea l . U ni t ed St at es v. R i nger , 9 Fed. A ppx. 8 4 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). R i nger , appea r i ng pr o s e, fi l ed a § 2255 mot i on as s ert i ng, among ot hercl ai m s , t hat h is tria l co u n se l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to in v e stig a te th e p o ss ib ili tyo f a n in sa n ity d e f e n se . T h e d istric t co u rt d e n ied R in g e r’s m o tio n w ith o u t re q u irin g th e g o v e rn m e n t to fi l e a r es pons e. I n doi ng s o, the di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded thatR i nger ’ s i neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e c laim w a s p ro c e d u ra llyb a rre d b e c a u se h e h a d f a iled to ra ise it o n d ire c t ap p e a l, and that , al t ernat i vel y , ther e w as no m er i tt o the cl ai m beca us e, gi ven R i nger ’ s act i ons d u r i n g th e b a n k r o b b e r i e s , a n i n s a n i tyd e f e n s e c o u l d n o th a v e b e e n s u c c e s s f u l . On appea l , w e conc l uded the di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng t o hol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng on R i nger ’ s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m . U ni t ed St at es v. R i nger , 139 Fed. A ppx. 969 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . A ccor di ngl y , w e r ever s ed the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der d e n y in g R in g e r’s m o tio n a n d re m a n d e d th e c a se to th e d istric t co u rt w ith in stru c tio n s to appoi ntcouns el t o r epr es entR i ngerand t o conductan evi dent i aryhear i ng. T he di s tr i ctcourt , perouri ns truct i ons , conduct ed an e vi dent i aryhear i ng on February24, 2006. O n M ar ch 2, 2006, the di s tr i ctcourti s s ued a w r i t t en or derdeny i ng R i nger ’ s § 2255 m ot i on. I n doi ng s o, the di s tr i ctcourtfound that( a) R i ngerw as r epr es ent ed dur i ng the tr i al pr ocee di ngs byan expe r i ence d cr i m i nal defe ns e att orney , ( b)-3-

R i nger ’ s tr i al couns el w as aw ar e of Ri nger ’ s hi s t oryof m ent al i l l nes s , ( c) R i nger ’ s tr i al co u n sel su cc essf

u ll ym o v ed to h av e R ing er u n d erg o a c o m p eten cyex am ination , (d) a sta f f p sy c h o lo g ist a t th e U n ited S tate s M e d ica l C e n ter f o r F e d e ra l P riso n e rs in Spr i ngfi el d, M i s s our i , concl uded thatR i ngers uffe r ed fr om bi - pol ardi s or derbutw as n o n e th e les s c o m p e ten t to sta n d trial, (e ) tria l co u n se l’s in v e stig a tio n in to th e f a c ts s urr oundi ng the bank r obber i es r evea l ed thatR i ngercl ear l ym ade pr epar at i ons for r obbi ng the banks and, fol l ow i ng the r obber i es , t ook var i ous s t eps t o evade det ect i on, ( f) tr i al couns el ul t i m at el yconcl uded thathe coul d notpr ove bycl earand convi nci ng e v id e n c e th a t R in g e r h a d a se v e re m e n tal d ise a se o r d e f e c t th a t m a d e h im u n a b le to appr eci at e the w r ongful nes s of hi s act s , as r equi r ed by18 U . S. C . § 17( a) , and ( g) tr i al couns el chos e i ns t ead t o pur s ue a de fens e of mi s i dent i fi cat i on as t o one of the bank r obberycount s and l ack of pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm w hi ch w as an el ementof pr oof on the r emai ni ng tw o cr i m es . B as ed upon thes e fa ctual fi ndi ngs , the di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded thatR i nger ’ s tr i al couns el m ade s tr at egi c choi ces thatw er e pr ofes s i onal l yr eas onabl e. R i ngerfi l ed a not i ce of appea l and a r eques tfora C O A . T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed R in g e r’s re q u e st. R in g e r h a s n o w f iled a n a p p lica tio n f

o r C O A w ith th is c o u rt. II. T he deni al of a mot i on forr el i ef pur s uantt o § 2255 m aybe appe al ed onl yi f the d istric t co u rt o r th is c o u rt f irst iss u e s a C O A . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(1 )(B ). “A c e rtific a te of appe al abi l i tym ayi 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 . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . I n or dert o m ake s uch a-4-

s h o w in g , a p e titio n e r m u s t d e m o n s tr a te th a t “ re a s o n a b le ju ri s ts c o u ld d e b a te w h e th e r . . . the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm annerorthatthe 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. M cD ani el , 529 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). In order t o p revai l on an ineffecti ve assi st ance o f cou nsel cl ai m , a def end ant m ust fi r s t“s how thatcouns el ’ s per form ance w as defi ci ent . ” Str i ckl and v. W as hi ngt on, 466 U . S. 668, 687 ( 1984) . “Thi s r equi r es s how i ng thatcouns el m ade e rr or s s o s er i ous that c o u n se l w a s n o t f

u n c tio n in g a s th e ‘c o u n se l’ g u a ra n tee d th e d e f e n d a n t b yth e S ix th A m endment . ” I d. “Second, the def endantm us ts how thatthe def i ci entper form ance p re ju d ic e d th e d e f

e n s e .” Id . A ft err evi ew i ng R i nger ’ s appel l at e br i ef a nd the r ecor d on appea l , w e ar e not per s uaded thatR i ngerhas es t abl i s hed hi s ent i t l ementt o a C O A . A l though R i nger cont i nues t o ar gue thathi s tr i al couns el fai l ed t o adequa t el yi nves t i gat e the pos s i bi l i tyof asse rt ing an insa n ityd ef en se, th at arg u m en t i s clea rl yu n d erc u t bythe d istri ct co u rt ’s fac tual fi ndi ngs , none of w hi ch ar e di s put ed byR i ngeron appea l . I n l i ghtof thos e fa ctual fi ndi ngs , w e conc l ude thatno r eas onabl e j ur i s tcoul d have di s agr eed w i th the di s tr i ct court ’ s det erm i nat i on thatR i nger ’ s tr i al couns el m ade a r eas onabl e s tr at egi c dec i s i on not t o pur s ue an i ns ani tydefe ns e, and t o i ns t ead f ocus on m or e vi abl e def ens es t o the cha r ged cri m es.-5-

T h e r e q u e s tf

o ra CO A i s DE NI E D a n d th e ma t t e ri s DI S M I S S E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge