UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

RICHARD POWELL, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 14-1304 

(D.C. Nos. 1:04-CR-00514-WYD-2 & 

1:13-CV-03532-WYD) 

(D. Colo.)

 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

 

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, LUCERO and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Richard Powell seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the 

district court’s determination that his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was an 

unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion that it lacked jurisdiction to 

consider. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 

2008). We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. 

 After being convicted of several drug-trafficking offenses, Mr. Powell 

unsuccessfully sought relief under § 2255. The district court denied his motion, and 

 

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the 

case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

November 26, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

this court granted a COA but ultimately affirmed the denial of relief. See United 

States v. Powell, 433 F. App’x 693, 694-95 (10th Cir. 2011). 

 Mr. Powell then filed a second § 2255 motion containing two claims. Before 

this court, he focuses on only one of those claims: that his counsel in his first § 2255 

proceeding was ineffective in plea negotiations that occurred during that proceeding 

(he alleges that while the § 2255 motion was pending, the government offered him a 

20-year sentence, and he made a counter-offer that his counsel did not pursue). The 

district court held that Mr. Powell knew of the facts underlying the claim during his 

first § 2255 proceeding and could have raised them then, making the new § 2255 

motion an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion. 

 Mr. Powell must obtain a COA to appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). To 

do so, he must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of 

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 

ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). This he cannot do. 

 Even assuming for the sake of argument that reasonable jurists could debate 

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling, Mr. Powell cannot 

show that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. There is no constitutional right to 

counsel in a post-conviction proceeding. See Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309, 

1315 (2012); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Pennsylvania v. 
- 3 - 

Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). Therefore, even if counsel performed inadequately 

during the first § 2255 proceeding, as Mr. Powell alleges, no reasonable jurist could 

conclude that he was deprived of a constitutional right. See Coleman, 501 U.S. at 

752 (where there is no constitutional right to counsel, a petitioner cannot claim 

constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel); Smallwood v. Gibson, 191 F.3d 

1257, 1266 n.4 (10th Cir. 1999) (same). 

 We grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but we deny a COA and 

dismiss this matter. 

 Entered for the Court 

 ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk