Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1748378.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:15:12+00:00

Document:
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Belin, Defendant-Appellant.
Mr. William Belin shot his girlfriend and was convicted in federal court on various charges. After unsuccessfully appealing, Mr. Belin moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied this motion, and Mr. Belin wants to appeal. To do so, he seeks a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We decline to issue a certificate of appealability, dismiss the appeal, and deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
To obtain a certificate of appealability, Mr. Belin must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). Mr. Belin would meet this standard only if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
• trial counsel's failure to object to the introduction of other evidence, failure to object to jury instructions, failure to assert intoxication as a defense, and allowance of due process violations.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984).
For a short period of time before trial, Mr. Belin was represented by an assistant public defender. According to Mr. Belin, the assistant public defender improperly failed to investigate the case and encouraged a plea offer. But another attorney replaced the assistant public defender, and Mr. Belin went to trial with the new attorney. Mr. Belin does not say how he was prejudiced by the assistant public defender's failure to investigate or encouragement to offer a guilty plea. Thus, we decline to issue a certificate of appealability on these claims.
All of the claims involving trial counsel are patently invalid.
Mr. Belin contends that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to object to evidence of two prior assaults. At trial, the district court addressed admissibility even though defense counsel had not objected. In addressing the issue, the court ultimately concluded that the evidence was admissible. In light of this ruling, an objection would have proven fruitless. As a result, we decline to issue a certificate of appealability on this claim.
Mr. Belin also claims that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to jury instructions. But Mr. Belin does not identify the problematic jury instructions. Without identification of the problematic instructions, we have nothing to review. See United States v. Fisher, 38 F.3d 1144, 1147 (10th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, this claim does not merit a certificate of appealability.
Mr. Belin argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise intoxication as a defense. Trial counsel pursued a different theory: accident. Mr. Belin does not say why an intoxication theory would have been better than trial counsel's theory that the shooting had been accidental. Accordingly, we decline to issue a certificate of appealability on this claim.
Mr. Belin also alleges a hodge-podge of due process violations, but does not tie them to trial counsel's conduct. Thus, Mr. Belin is not entitled to a certificate of appealability on this part of the ineffectiveness claim.
Mr. Belin also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny this request in light of the absence of any reasonably debatable claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
We decline to issue a certificate of appealability, dismiss the appeal, and deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
1. Mr. Belin states that the motion was prepared by a jailhouse lawyer who did a poor job. But there is no right to effective assistance of counsel in proceedings under § 2255. United States v. Snitz, 342 F.3d 1154, 1158 (10th Cir. 2003).

References: v. 
 § 2255
 § 2253
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1915
 § 2255
 v.