*

 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of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

1

 In his application for a certificate of appealability, Defendant states that

he was asserting in his petition that counsel should have raised a justification

defense and presented expert testimony that Defendant’s fingerprints were not

(continued...)

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 22, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JERRY LEE WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-3100

(D.C. No. 07-CV-01339-JTM)

(D. Kan.)

 

ORDER*

Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Defendant, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of

appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2255 habeas petition. In

his habeas petition, Defendant asserted that he received ineffective assistance of

counsel in his federal jury trial for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The

petition contained only one sentence in support: “Counsel did not raise issues in

which he was instructed to raise did not request expert for jury to hear testify.”1
1

(...continued)

found on the firearm. However, nothing he presented to the district court even

remotely alluded to the justification defense or fingerprint evidence. In

addressing Defendant’s request for a certificate of appealability, we do not

consider the specific theories he now raises, which were at best raised “in a vague

and ambiguous way” before the district court. See Bancamerica Commercial

Corp. v. Mosher Steel of Kan., Inc., 100 F.3d 792, 798-99 (10th Cir.), op. am. on

other grounds, 103 F.3d 80 (10th Cir. 1996). 

-2-

(R. Doc. 102 at 4.) The district court concluded that this conclusory claim did not

warrant relief, noting that Defendant had “supplie[d] no supporting evidence to

show that credible arguments were in fact neglected by counsel or that any expert

testimony was available which would have materially assisted his case.” (R. Doc.

106 at 2.)

 To obtain a certificate of appealability, Defendant must make “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order

to meet this burden, Defendant must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could

debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been

resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to

deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).

After carefully reviewing Defendant’s filings in this court, the district

court’s disposition, and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists

would not debate the district court’s conclusion that Defendant failed to establish

ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard set forth in Strickland v.
-3-

Washington, 466 U.S.668 (1984). Accordingly, for substantially the reasons set

forth by the district court, we DENY Defendant’s request for a certificate of

appealability and DISMISS the appeal. 

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge