A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has * d e ter m in e d u n a n im o u slyth a t o ra l ar g u m e n t w o u ld n o t b e o f m a ter ial a ss ista n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe 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 per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### A p ril4,2007 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. RU BE N PA RT I D A - CE RV A N TES,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 3321 ( D . C . N o. 06- C V - 3123- W E B and 0 4 - CR- 1 0 0 2 9 - W EB) (D . K a n .)

OR DER * B efo re BR I S COE, M c KAY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. D efe ndantpl eade d gui l tyt o pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e i n exce s s of fi ve ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) and ( b) ( 1) ( A ) and w as s ent ence d t o the s t atut orym i ni m um of 120 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . O n di r ect appea l , a pane l of thi s courtgr ant ed the governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o enfor ce D e fe n d a n t’ s p le a a g re e m e n t a n d d is m is s e d th e a p p e a l. Uni t ed Stat es v. P ar t i daC er vant es , N o . 0 4 -3 3 6 3 (1 0 th C ir . J u l. 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( u n p u b lis h e d ).D efe ndantthen fi l ed a § 2255 pe t i t i on al l egi ng i nvol unt aryand unknow i ng

w ai verof appe l l at e r i ght s , i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ats ent enci ng, and u n c o n stitu tio n a l B ookererr or atsent encing. T he d i stri ctcou rtrej ect ed these c la im s a n d d e n ie d D e fe n d a n t’ s re q u e s t fo r a c e rt ific a te o f a p p e a la b ility (“ C O A ” ). T he di s tr i ctcourtr evi s i t ed thes e cl ai m s fol l ow i ng D efe ndant ’ s m ot i on for reconsi derat i on , and aft er further analy si s spurr ed b yD efen dan t ’s new argum ents , reje c te d D e fe n d a n t’ s m o tio n a n d c o n fir m e d its d e n ia l o f a C O A . D e fe n d a n t ad v a n c e s to th is c o u rt th e sa m e a rg u m e n ts h e m a d e b e lo w in ad d it ion to a c lai m that the d istri ct co u rterred in n o t gran ti n g an ev iden ti ary hear i ng r egar di ng D efe ndant ’ s al l eged fai l ur e t o compre hend “s afe tyval ve” r el i ef. H ow ever , ourcons i der at i on of thes e cl ai m s i s pr edi cat ed on ouri s s uance of a CO A . D efe ndanti s ent i t l ed t o a C O A onl yi f he makes 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) . T o do so , D efen d an t 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 . ” Slack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( quot at i on o m i t t e d ) . I n o th e rw o r d s , th e a p p l i c a n tm u s ts h o w th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r t 's r es ol ut i on of the cons t i tut i onal cl ai m w as ei ther“deba t abl e orw r ong. ” Id. B etw een the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or i gi nal deci s i on deny i ng D efe ndant ’ s § 2255 p eti ti o n an d it s su b seq u en t dec isi o n d en y ing D efen d an t’ s m o ti o n to rec o n side r, w e b eli ev e the d istri ct co u rtm o re tha n ad eq u atelyad d resse d D efen d an t’ sarg u m en ts an d see n o rea so n to rep ea t th at effo rth ere . T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s

w e ll-re a so n e d o p in io n s c o n c lu d e d th a t D e fe n d a n t w a iv e d b yp lea a g re e m e n t h is r i ghtt o col l at er al l ychal l enge hi s s ent ence , r ece i ved effec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , and compr ehende d hi s pl ea a gr eementw i th the ai d of couns el and an interpre ter. In a d d it ion , the d istri ct co u rtan aly ze d , in the alt ern ati v e, D efen d an t’ s c laim e d e lig ib ili tyfo r “ sa fe tyv a lv e ” re lief a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t b e c a u se h is under l y i ng cr i m e i nvol ved ki dnappi ng bythr eat s of vi ol ence , he coul d nots at i s fy 18 U . S. C . § 3553( f) ( 2) . G i ven thi s r es ul t , as w el l as the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s corr ect det erm i nat i on thatD efe ndantr ece i ved effec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns el r egar di ng thi s i s s ue, w e do notfi nd thatthe di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on bydeny i ng D e fe n d a n t a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g o n th is is s u e . S e e Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Ha r ms , 371 F .3 d 1 2 0 8 , 1 2 1 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. C ox , 8 3 F .3 d 3 3 6 , 3 4 1 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). C ons equent l y , aft erhavi ng car eful l yr evi ew ed D efe ndant ’ s br i ef, the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s pos i t i ons , and the r ecor d on appea l , w e conc l ude thatno r e a s o n a b l y d e b a t a b l e i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d b y D e fe n d a n t ’ s a p p e a l . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e DE NY D efe ndant ’ s r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyand D I SM I SS the a p p e a l. W e d o , h o w e v e r, GRANT D efe ndant ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n f o r ma 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