Opinion ID: 6345771
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims Raised for First Time in COA Application

Text: In his COA application, Mr. Swan raises three issues for the first time: (1) The district court unreasonably denied his motion for a change of venue. 13 Appellate Case: 21-8071 Document: 010110691385 Date Filed: 06/01/2022 Page: 14 (2) The statutes of conviction, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), exceed Congress’s power and violate the Tenth Amendment. (3) The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and his appellate attorney was ineffective by not arguing lack of jurisdiction on appeal. As to the first two issues, (1) Mr. Swan could have raised them on direct appeal, so they are subject to procedural default, which he makes no attempt to overcome, see McGaughy, 670 F.3d at 1159; (2) he did not raise them in his § 2255 filings and has not argued here for plain error review, see Richison, 634 F.3d at 1130-31; and (3) his arguments are insufficiently developed, see Sawyers, 962 F.3d at 1286. We therefore decline to consider those issues. He did not raise his jurisdiction argument in district court, either. To the extent we must address this issue, we reject it because the district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231: “The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.”