Source: http://openjurist.org/120/f3d/271/united-states-v-l-thompson/2
Timestamp: 2017-03-29 02:04:31
Document Index: 258334237

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2254', '§ 2255', '§ 2253', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

120 F3d 271 United States v. L Thompson | OpenJurist
120 F. 3d 271 - United States v. L Thompson Home
120 F3d 271 United States v. L Thompson 120 F.3d 271
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Kenneth L. THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 96-3297.
Mr. Kenneth L. Thompson brings this pro se motion collaterally attacking his conviction of two counts of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). Mr. Thompson states he initiated this action in the form of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) motion, and that the district court converted his motion into a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994 & West Supp.1997) proceeding. Because Mr. Thompson challenges the legality of his convictions, we too construe his motion as proceeding pursuant to § 2255. See McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 811 (10th Cir.1997) ("Petitions under § 2241 are used to attack the execution of a sentence, in contrast to § 2254 habeas and § 2255 proceedings, which are used to collaterally attack the validity of a conviction and sentence." (Citations omitted.)).
To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, Mr. Thompson must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right by demonstrating the issues raised are debatable among jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the questions deserve further proceedings. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253; Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 892-93 & n. 4 (1983); Lennox v. Evans, 87 F.3d 431, 433-34 (10th 1996), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 746 (1997); Gallagher v. Hannigan, 24 F.3d 68 (10th Cir.1994).
"Absent extraordinary circumstances, the orderly administration of criminal justice precludes a district court from considering a § 2255 motion while review of the direct appeal is still pending." United States v. Cook, 997 F.2d 1312, 1319 (10th Cir.1993). Mr. Thompson fails to detail any "extraordinary circumstances" warranting noncompliance with this general rule. Accordingly, the district court's initial denial of his § 2255 motion was proper, as was its subsequent refusal to grant Mr. Thompson a certificate of appealability. Because we too find Mr. Thompson has not met the requisite standard for him to be entitled to a certificate of appealability, we deny Mr. Thompson the requested certificate of appealability.