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

### A u gu s t14,2006 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. I TOB OR E OSH OB E, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 3142 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 3 4 3 4 - M LB) ( D. C. No . 0 3 - CR- 1 0 0 5 2 - 0 1 - M LB)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R DENYI NG A CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. D efe ndant - A ppel l antI t obor e O s hobe, a N i ger i an nat i onal and a feder al pr i s onerappea r i ng pr o s e, s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty( “C O A ”) al l ow i ng hi m t o appea l the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2255 m ot i on. T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed the mot i on on the mer i t s . O urj ur i s di ct i on ar i s es under28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253( a) , and as M r . O s hobe has fai l ed t o m ake 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) ; Sl ack v. M c D a n iel, 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ), w e d e n ya C O A a n d d ism iss th e a p p e a l.- 2 - Backg r ound A ft era j urytr i al , M r . O s hobe w as convi ct ed on one c ountof ai di ng the u n a u th o riz e d u se o f

a n a c c e ss d e v ice /cr e d it ca rd , o n e c o u n t o f in ter sta te tr ans por t at i on of s t ol en pr operty , one countof r ece i ptof s t ol en pr operty , and t en c o u n ts o f

m a il fra u d . A f

ter re c e iv in g th e P re -S e n ten c e R e p o rt a n d a ss e ss in g its cal cul at i ons , the di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d M r . O s hobe t o 41 m onths i m pr i s onm ent a n d re stitu tio n in th e a m o u n t o f $ 3 1 ,3 6 1 .3 7 . M r. O sh o b e filed a d ire c t ap p e a l, w h ich w as rejected . U n it ed S tat es v . O sh o b e, 14 5 F ed . A p p ’x. 24 3 (10 th C ir . 2005) . N ext , M r . O s hobe fi l ed hi s § 2255 m ot i on i n the di s tr i ctcourt , w hi ch w as di s m i s s ed on the mer i t s . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. O n appea l , M r . O s hobe adva nces num er ous cont ent i ons . H e fi r s tar gues th a t h is tria l co u n se l w a s in e ffe c tiv e , o n th e fo llo w in g g ro u n d s: (1 ) fa ili n g to inq u ir e into the c ir cu m stan ce s o f th e e x ec u ti o n o f a sea rch w arran t on M r. O s hobe’ s r es i dence and fi l e a mot i on t o s uppr es s ; ( 2) fai l i ng t o i m peac h a governm entw i tnes s w i th pr i orfal s e t es t i m onyand fi l e a mot i on t o di s m i s s t he i ndi ctm entbas ed on fa l s e t es t i m ony ; ( 3) fai l i ng t o advi s e hi m of the cons equenc es of agr eei ng t o a s t i pul at i on attr i al ; ( 4) fai l i ng t o r es ear ch mi t i gat i ng evi dence ; and ( 5) fai l i ng t o s eek the pr es ence of ce r t ai n w i tnes s es . M r . O s hobe nextar gues that : ( 6) the gr and j uryw as notabl e t o exer ci s e i t s ow n j udgm entdue t o the test im o n yeli cit ed b ythe g o v ern m en t; (7) h e sh o u ld b e g ran ted a n ev iden ti ary hear i ng on hi s m ot i on t o vaca t e; ( 8) a w i tnes s w hos e t es t i m onyw as excl udedM r . O s hobe al s o cont i nues t o i ns i s ton appea l , as he has i n var i ous other 1 b ri efing s, that h is case sh o u ld b e re assig n ed fro m D istri ct Ju d g e B elot. M r. O sh o b e h a s v e h e m e n tlyc o n ten d e d th a t Ju d g e B e lo t h a s b e e n b ias e d a g a in st h im dat i ng back t o “the movant ’ s tr i al . ” See A pl t . A pp. D oc. 128. W hi l e i ti s of cour s e true, i ndeed a xi om at i c, thatt he courtm us tr et ai n the appe ar ance of im p a rtiality , se e N ich o ls v . A lley , 7 1 F .3 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 0 -5 2 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ), itsim p ly i s notthe ca s e thata j udge ca n be dee m ed bi as ed s i m pl ybyvi r tue of hi s “pr i or ruli n g s in the p roc ee d ing , o r an o ther p roc ee d ing , so lel yb ec au se th eyw ere adver s e. ” I d. at351. A tthe s ame t i m e, w hi l e i ti s cert ai nl yr eas onabl e t o vi ew s om e of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s l anguage as undul yhar s h, s ee e . g. , A pl t . A pp. D oc 1 3 5 a t 1 5 (c h a ra c ter izin g M r. O sh o b e ’s c laim s a s a “ tall ta le w h ich a ten y e a r o ld chil d w ou l d h ave seen throug h”), t hat har sh l ang uag e on l yam ou nts t o an adv ers e ru l i n g , a n d n o th i n g m o r e fo rp u rp o s e s o f o u rb i a s i n q u i ry. - 3 - s houl d have be en al l ow ed t o t es t i fy ; ( 9) the tr i al cour terr ed i n comm ent i ng on a factual i ssue t o b e decided b ythe jury ; and (10) the d i stri ctcou rtfai l ed to add res s hi s ar gum ent bas ed on cumul at i ve err or . A s di s cus s ed bel ow , and found byt he 1 d is tr ic t c o u rt , M r. O s h o b e ’s a rg u m e n ts a re p a te n tly m e ri tle s s . D i s cus s i on W h e re th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie s a § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n o n p ro c e d u ra l g ro u n d s , a C O A s houl d i s s ue w hen the pet i t i oner“s how s , atl eas t , t hatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hetherthe pet i t i on s t at es a val i d cl ai m of the deni al of a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtand thatj ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d fi nd i tdebat abl e w hethert he di s tr i ctcourtw as corr ecti n i t s pr ocedur al rul i ng. ” Sl ack, 529 U . S. at484. O n t he o th e r h a n d , w h e re , a s h e re , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie s th e m o tio n o n th e m e ri ts , a C O A sh o u ld iss u e w h e n th e p e tit io n e r “ d e m o n stra te[ s] th a t re a so n a b le ju rists w oul d fi nd the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s as s es s m entof the cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s debat abl e or- 4 -

w ro n g .” Id . U pon t hr ough r evi ew of the ent i r e r ecor d, w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatthe di s tr i ct courtadequa t el yand thor oughl ydi s pos ed of M r . O s hobe’ s cont ent i ons and they ar e notdebat abl e. A l though he fa ul t s the di s tr i ctcourtforaddr es s i ng cumul at i ve err or , thattheorydoes notappl yi n the abs ence of err or . C as tr o v. W ar d, 138 F .3 d 8 1 0 , 8 3 2 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). In so fa r a s th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n to n o t h o ld an evi dent i aryhear i ng, i ti s qui t e cl earthatthe al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n the p eti ti o n are fa r t o o sp ec u lat ive to w arran t an e v iden ti aryh ea ri n g , an d thu s the re w a s n o a b u se o f

d isc re tio n . S e e U n ited S tate s v . L o p e z , 1 0 0 F .3 d 1 1 3 , 1 1 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY a C O A , GR ANT l e a v e t o p r o c e e d i n fo r ma p a u p e ri s , DE NY al l pendi ng m ot i ons , and D I SM I SS th e a p p e a l.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge