Opinion ID: 3156438
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appeals and Post-Conviction Motions

Text: We affirmed Mr. Jordan’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Id. at 1216. He then filed a motion for additional DNA testing under the Innocence Protection Act of 2005 (“IPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3600, and a related motion to require the Government to preserve his trial evidence. The district court denied the first motion and dismissed the second as moot. We affirmed its decision as to both. See United States v. Jordan, 594 F.3d 1265, 1266 (10th Cir. 2010). Mr. Jordan also moved for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based in part on ineffective assistance of counsel and the results he anticipated from additional DNA testing. The district court denied that motion, United States v. Jordan, No. 04-cr-00229-LTB, at 123-24 (D. Colo. Jan. 21, 2011) (unpublished), ECF No. 639, and we denied a certificate of appealability for Mr. Jordan to appeal that denial, United States v. Jordan, 461 F. App’x 771, 773 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished).2 After obtaining Mr. Riker’s confession and the new DNA analysis, Mr. Jordan moved for a new trial under Rule 33 based on newly discovered evidence. He also moved for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, which we granted. See In re Mark Jordan, No. 13-1436, at 1 (10th Cir. Nov. 14, 2013) (unpublished). introduced into the record a letter Jordan wrote to his mother discussing his desire to be placed in segregation. Id. at 1223 nn.5-6 (internal record citations omitted). 2 Mr. Jordan filed numerous other post-conviction motions. We have limited our background section to those most relevant to this appeal. -6- Although he filed his § 2255 motion, he elected to dismiss it and rely solely on his Rule 33 motion for relief.