## 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

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. T O D D H A R O L D C O O P E R ,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 4094 ( D i s tr i ctof U t ah) ( D . C . N os . 1: 05- C V - 142- PG C and 1 : 0 0 - CR- 5 1 - P GC)

ORDE R B efo re M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C ir c u it J u d g e s . T odd H ar ol d C ooper , appea r i ng pro se , see k s to a p p ea l th e d istri ct co u rt ’s d e n ia l o f

h is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n to v a c a te , s e t a s id e , o r c o rr e c t h is s e n te n c e . T he mat t eri s befor e thi s courton C ooper ’ s r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of a p p e a la b ility (“ C O A ” ). See 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( B ) ( pr ovi di ng no appea l m ay be t aken f

r om a “f i nal or deri n a pr ocee di ng unders ect i on 2255” unl es s the m ovantfi r s tobt ai ns a C O A ) . C ooper ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris on app eal i s grant ed . A j u ryfo u n d Co o p e rg u i l tyo f b a n k r o b b e ry , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 2 1 1 3 , an d u sin g a fire a rm d u rin g th e c o m m iss io n o f 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) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) . A ppl y i ng the “thr ee s tr i kes ” pr ovi s i on s etouti n 18 U . S. C . § 3559( c) ( 1) , the di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d C oopert o l i fe im p ri so n m en t on the b an k rob b eryco n v ict ion an d a c o n sec u ti v e se v en -y ea r t erm of i m pr i s onm enton the fi r earm convi ct i on. C ooper ’ s convi ct i ons and s ent ence s w e re a ffir m e d b yth is c o u rt o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. Uni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 375 F. 3d 1 0 4 1 , 1 0 5 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). C o o p e r filed th e in sta n t § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n o n N o v e m b e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , rais in g six cl ai m s : ( 1) the s ent ence i m pos ed forthe bank r obberyconvi ct i on exce eded the sta tu to rym a x im u m se t o u t in 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 1 3 (a ) a n d th e d istric t co u rt fa iled to stat e in o p en co u rtthe ra ti o n ale fo r i m p o sing the life se n tenc e; (2) the tr ial co u rt i ncorr ect l ycal cul at ed hi s offe ns e l evel underthe U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ; ( 3) hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ght s w er e vi ol at ed bythe appl i cat i on of the § 3559( c) ( 1) enhanc ementbeca us e the j udge found fact s r el at i ng t o w hether h is p rio r fe lo n yc o n v ictio n s w e re p a rt o f a c o m m o n sc h e m e o r p lan ; (4 ) h is F if th and Si xth A m endmentr i ght s w er e vi ol at ed bec aus e the i s s ue of the exi s t ence of h is p rio r fe lo n yc o n v ictio n s w a s n o t p re se n ted to a ju ry ; an d (5 ) h is a p p e llate c o u n se l w a s in e ffe c tiv e fo r fa ili n g to ra ise c laim s o n d ire c t ap p e a l, fa ili n g to obj ectt o the Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eport , and fa i l i ng t o pr oper l ypr es ent ar gum ent s t o thi s courton di r ectappea l . T he di s tr i ctcourtcons i der ed ea ch of C o o p e r’ s a rg u m e n ts in tu rn a n d d e n ie d re lie f. In s o ru lin g , th e c o u rt n o te d , i nt er a lia , that( 1) C ooperw as s ent ence d pur s uantt o s t atut e, notthe Sent enci ng- 3-

G ui del i nes , hi s s ent ence di d notexce ed the s t atut orym axi m um , and ats ent enci ng the courts t at ed the gui del i nes s ent ence w as “s uper s eded bythe mandat oryl i fe se n ten c e b ysta tu te” ; (2 ) e v e n if th e P re se n ten c e R e p o rt im p ro p e rlyfa iled to cons ol i dat e ce r t ai n pr i orfel oni es , C ooperhad atl eas tfi ve di ffe r ents er i ous v i o l e n tfe l o n yc o n v i c t i o n s th a ttr i g g e r e d th e a p p l i c a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 3559( c) ( 1) ; ( 3) C ooper ’ s othercl ai m s r el at i ng t o hi s s ent enci ng w er e barr ed by A lm endar ez - Torr es v. Uni t ed Stat es , 523 U . S. 224, 228 ( 1998) and Uni t ed Stat es v . B e l la my , 4 1 1 F .3 d 1 1 8 2 , 1 1 8 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); a n d (4 ) C o o p e r fa iled to demonstr at e he w as pr ej udi ced byhi s couns el ’ s al l eged i neffect i ve as s i s t ance . T o be ent i t l ed t o a C O A , C ooperm us tm ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the 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 o m a k e th e re q u isite sh o w ing , h e m u st de m o n str ate “ that rea so n ab le j u ri sts co u ld d eb ate w h ethe r (or, forthatm 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 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 ther . ” Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) ( quot at i ons o m itt e d ); s ee als o Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 474, 484- 85 ( 2000) ( hol di ng that w h e n a d is tr ic t c o u rt d is m is s e s a h a b e a s p e titio n o n p ro c e d u ra l g ro u n d s , a p e tit io n e r is e n tit led to a C O A o n lyif h e sh o w s b o th th a t re a so n a b le ju rists w o u ld fin d it d e b a tab le w h e th e r h e h a d sta ted a v a lid c o n stitu tio n a l cla im a n d d e b a tab le w h e th e r t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s p ro c e d u ra l ru lin g w a s c o rr e c t) . I n eval uat i ng w hether C ooperhas s at i s fi ed hi s bur den, thi s courtundert akes “a pr el i m i nary , though not- 4-

d e fin iti v e , co n sid e ra tio n o f th e [ leg a l] f

ra m e w o rk ” a p p lica b le to e a c h o f h is c la im s . Mi l l e r - Ela t 3 3 8 . A lth o u g h C o o p e r n e e d n o t d e m o n stra te h is a p p e a l w ill s ucce ed t o be ent i t l ed t o a C O A , he must“pr ove s om ethi ng m or e than the abs ence of fr i vol i tyorthe exi s t ence of m er e good fa i th. ” Id. H avi ng undert aken a r evi ew of C ooper ’ s appl i cat i on fora C O A and appel l at e fi l i ngs , the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der , and the ent i r e r ecor d on appea l pur s uantt o the fr amew or k s etoutbythe Supr eme C our ti n Mi l l e r - El , this co u rt concl udes C ooperi s notent i t l ed t o a C O A . T he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r es ol ut i on of C ooper ’ s § 2255 m ot i on i s notr eas onabl ys ubj ectt o debat e and the i s s ues he s e e k s to ra is e o n a p p e a l a re n o t a d e q u a te to d e s e rv e f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . A c c o rd in g ly , this c o u rt deni es C ooper ’ s r eques tfora C O A and di s m i s s es th is a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt E L IS A B E T H A . S H U M A K E R , C lerk By D ep u tyC lerk