UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES EARL MERIDYTH, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 10-2022 

(1:05-CV-00761-LH-RHS) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before KELLY, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. 

James Earl Meridyth, a federal prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability 

(“COA”) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition.1

 

Meridyth’s petition challenges his 2001 conviction on a number of drug-trafficking 

charges on the grounds that he was incompetent during trial and that his trial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to investigate his competency. For substantially the reasons stated 

by the district court, we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal. 

 *

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, 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

 We construe Meridyth’s Notice of Appeal as an application for a COA. See Fed. 

R. App. P. 22(b)(2). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

July 19, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 10-2022 Document: 01018459261 Date Filed: 07/19/2010 Page: 1 
2- 

I 

In 2001, Meridyth was tried before a jury and convicted on three counts of drug 

trafficking. His trial counsel did not investigate Meridyth’s competency to stand trial or 

raise concerns regarding Meridyth’s competency to the trial judge. 

After securing new counsel, Meridyth moved to stay sentencing. The district court 

determined he was incompetent, and he was committed for treatment and evaluation. 

Following a second evaluation, Meridyth was declared competent to proceed to 

sentencing, and sentence was imposed. We affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. 

United States v. Meridyth, 364 F.3d 1181, 1185 (10th Cir. 2004). Meridyth’s 

competency at trial and the effectiveness of trial counsel were not raised. See id. at 1181. 

Meridyth then filed a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to § 2255. After a series 

of delays, a magistrate judge ordered an evidentiary hearing to consider whether 

Meridyth and his now-ex-wife timely informed trial counsel that they wished Meridyth’s 

mental health to be evaluated. At the hearing, Meridyth and his sister testified that trial 

counsel had known Meridyth was mentally ill before and during trial. In turn, trial 

counsel testified that Meridyth had appeared rational and that counsel had had no reason 

to believe Meridyth incompetent before or during trial. During this testimony, Meridyth 

objected to certain lines of questioning on the ground that they went beyond the scope of 

the hearing, but the magistrate overruled these objections. The magistrate similarly 

denied Meridyth’s motion to strike statements he contended were beyond the scope of the 

hearing.

Appellate Case: 10-2022 Document: 01018459261 Date Filed: 07/19/2010 Page: 2 
3- 

After the hearing, the magistrate issued a report and recommendation concluding 

that Meridyth was not entitled to habeas relief, based in part on factual findings that: (1) 

Meridyth was not credible when he testified that he suffered from mental illness of which 

his counsel was aware; and (2) trial counsel’s testimony that Meridyth appeared rational 

was credible and supported by the record. Over objection by Meridyth, the district court 

adopted the magistrate’s report and dismissed the petition. The district court also denied 

Meridyth’s subsequent application for a COA. 

II 

A petitioner may not appeal the denial of relief under § 2255 without a COA. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B). We may issue a COA “only if the applicant has made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2). This requires Meridyth to 

show “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) (quotations omitted). 

Meridyth first argues that the magistrate erred in determining that his testimony 

was not credible, while trial counsel’s testimony was credible and supported by the 

record. We review a district court’s factual findings for clear error. Clark v. Oklahoma, 

468 F.3d 711, 714 (10th Cir. 2006). The magistrate considered the record as a whole in 

reaching his legal and factual conclusions. Substantial evidence suggests that Meridyth 

fabricated his claims of mental illness in pursuit of legal advantage. In light of this 

evidence, reasonable jurists could not conclude that the district court clearly erred in 

Appellate Case: 10-2022 Document: 01018459261 Date Filed: 07/19/2010 Page: 3 
4- 

disbelieving Meridyth’s assertions that he was mentally ill and had informed trial counsel 

nor in crediting trial counsel’s testimony to the contrary. Meridyth’s contention that his 

visible head scar would cause any capable counsel to investigate competency is without 

merit: Counsel testified that Meridyth affirmatively demonstrated competency by being 

rationally involved in his own defense. 

Finally, Meridyth contends that the district court erred by failing to strike portions 

of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing that allegedly exceeded the hearing’s scope. 

We decline to consider this issue because Meridyth failed to specifically present it to the 

district court in his objection to the magistrate’s report and recommendation. See

Morales-Fernandez v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir. 2005) (“This court has 

adopted a firm waiver rule under which a party who fails to make a timely objection to 

the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations waives appellate review of both 

factual and legal questions.”). 

III 

 For the foregoing reasons, we DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Carlos F. Lucero 

 Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 10-2022 Document: 01018459261 Date Filed: 07/19/2010 Page: 4