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

### A p ril17,2007 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, N o. 06- 6295 v. ( W . D . O kl ahoma) DI ANE L E NOR E GR I F F I T H,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D . C . N os . 06- C V - 424- R and 0 2 - CR- 9 2 - R)

OR DER B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. T his m at t er i s befo re the co urton D i ane L eno re G ri ffi th’s pro se r eques tfor a c e r t i fi c a t e o f

a p p e a l a b i l i t y( “ CO A” ) . Gr i ffi th , a fe d e r a l p r i s o n e r , s e e k s a CO A s o s h e c a n a p p e a l th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f h e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( B ) . B eca us e G r i ffi th has not“made 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 , ” i d. § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ), th is c o u rt deni es her r eques tfora C O A and di s m i s s es th is a p p e a l. F o ll o w ing a jurytr ial , G ri ffith w as fo u n d g u il tyo f c o n sp ir ac yan d w ir e f ra u d . Uni t ed Stat es v. D az ey , 4 0 3 F . 3 d 1 1 4 7 , 1 1 5 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h is co u rt a ffir m e d G ri ffith ’s c o n v ic tio n s o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. Id. at1179. G r i ffi th then fi l ed t he i ns t ant§ 2255 m ot i on, as s ert i ng herconvi ct i ons w er e voi d a b in iti o becau se th e d istric t co u rt lac k e d ju risd ictio n to tryh e r a n d h e r tria l d id n o t co m p o rt w ith-2-

th e S p e e d yT ri a l A c t, 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 1 6 1 , ets eq . T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed G r i ffi t h’ s § 2255 m ot i on, concl udi ng as fol l ow s : ( 1) i thad j ur i s di ct i on t o trythe ch arg es a g ains t G ri ffith p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 2 3 1 ; ( 2 ) G ri ffith ’s j ur i s di ct i onal chal l enge w as , i n es s ence , a di s gui s ed cha l l enge t o the s uffi ci ency o f th e e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g h e r c o n v ictio n s, c h a llen g e s a lre a d yrejec ted b yth is c o u rt o n d ire c t ap p e a l; (3 ) G riffith w a s p ro c e d u ra llyb a rre d f ro m ra isin g a c laim undert he SpeedyT r i al A ctbeca us e s he had fai l ed t o r ai s e s uch a c l ai m on di r ect a p p e a l. T he gr ant i ng of a CO A i s a j ur i s di ct i onal pr er equi s i t e t o G r i ffi th’ s appea l f ro m th e d e n ia l o f

h e r § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) . T o be ent i t l ed t o a C O A , G r i ffi th m us tm ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of t he deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . T o m ake the r equi s i t e s how i ng, s he mustdemonstr at e “r eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether ( or , fort hatm at t er , agr ee that ) t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm annerort hatt he i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve encour agementt o pr ocee d fur t her . ” Id. ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I n eval uat i ng w h e t h e rG r i ffi t h h a s s a t i s fi e d h e rb u r d e n , th i s c o u r tu n d e r t a k e s “ a p r e l i m i n a ry, t hough notdefi ni t i ve, cons i der at i on of the [l egal ] fr amew or k” appl i cabl e t o eac h o f h e r c la im s . Id. a t 3 3 8 . A lth o u g h G riffith n e e d n o t d e m o n stra te h e r 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 , s he must“pr ove s om ethi ng m or e than the abs ence of fr i vol i t yort he exi s t ence of m er e good fa i th. ” Id.-3-

H avi ng under t aken a r evi ew of G r i ffi th’ s vol um i nous appel l at e fi l i ngs , t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s or der , and the ent i r e r ecor d befor e thi s cour tpur s uantt o the fr amew or k s etoutbyt he Supr eme C our ti n Mi l l e r - El , w e conc l ude G r i ffi th i s not e n tit led to a C O A . T h e d istric t co u rt’s r e so lu tio n o f G riffith ’s § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n is n o t r ea so n ab lysu bject t o d eb ate a n d the issu es sh e se ek s to raise o n ap p ea l are notadequa t e t o des erve furt herpr ocee di ngs . G r i ffi th’ s cl ai m s r egar di ng the juri sd ict ion o f th e d istri ct co u rtto trythe c h arg es a g ains t her a re, t o saythe v ery lea st, fa n c if

u l an d f riv o lo u s. A c c o rd in g ly , this c o u rt DENI ES G ri ffi th’s r equ est fora C O A and DI S M I S S ES t hi s appea l . G r i ffi th’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d on appea l in fo rm a p a up e ris ; “M ot i on t o di s qual i fyt he ent i r e 1s t , 2nd, 3r d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7t h, 8t h, 9t h, 10t h, 11t h, and D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a C i r cui t s forC aus e: racket eeri ng ”; and M oti on for R el ease on B on d P end i ng A pp eal are l i kew i se DENI ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt E li sab eth A . S h u m ak er, C lerk

B y: D ep u tyC lerk