Opinion ID: 2670174
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: On October 30, 2008, a Texas state court issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Knittel on a charge of first-degree murder. See United States v. Knittel, 462 F. App’x 844, 845 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished). A Texas sheriff’s department issued an all-pointsbulletin (“APB”) to law enforcement offices across the country for Mr. Knittel’s arrest, noting that Mr. Knittel was believed to be en route to Oklahoma. Id. at 845-86. On November 9, 2008, an Oklahoma police officer recognized Mr. Knittel’s car based on information provided in the APB and pulled him over. Id. at 846. Mr. Knittel, who had previously been convicted of a felony, admitted to the officer he had a gun in his car. After arresting Mr. Knittel, the officer found the gun loaded with six rounds of ammunition inside the car. Id.

On March 16, 2010, a federal grand jury in Oklahoma indicted Mr. Knittel on one count of felony possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). -2- Court-appointed counsel represented Mr. Knittel through pre-trial proceedings, though Mr. Knittel repeatedly complained about his representation. See Knittel, 462 F. App’x at 846. “At one point, the district court allowed [Mr. Knittel] to proceed pro se, with appointed counsel acting as standby.” Id. Acting pro se, Mr. Knittel entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal (1) the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress; (2) the district court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) the issue of whether he received effective assistance of counsel. See id. at 845. Mr. Knittel appeared pro se at a sentencing hearing on March 28, 2011. After the hearing, Mr. Knittel was sentenced to 96 months in prison.
On appeal, Mr. Knittel’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), explaining why he believed there were no colorable grounds for an appeal and requesting leave to withdraw as counsel. This court agreed that Mr. Knittel had failed to raise a meritorious issue and dismissed Mr. Knittel’s appeal. See Knittel, 462 F. App’x at 847. Among other arguments, we rejected Mr. Knittel’s contention that the district court erred in denying him a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978), to challenge alleged falsehoods in the affidavit supporting the Texas warrant that led to his arrest. See id. -3-
After his unsuccessful appeal, Mr. Knittel filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. In his § 2255 motion, Mr. Knittel raised four grounds for relief. Mr. Knittel argued the trial court (1) improperly denied him counsel at the critical stage of sentencing; (2) improperly interjected itself in plea bargaining and misled him as to whether it would grant a reduction under the Sentencing Guidelines for acceptance of responsibility; and (3) erred in denying him a Franks hearing. In addition, Mr. Knittel argued (4) his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to (a) investigate facts related to the Texas murder case, (b) give Mr. Knittel correct information about the Sentencing Guidelines, and (c) share with Mr. Knittel a psychological evaluation that figured into sentencing. See United States v. Knittel, No. 5:13-CV-01251-R, at -2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 20, 2013), ECF No. 2 [hereinafter Dist. Ct. Order]. The district court held that three of Mr. Knittel’s claims—denial of counsel, improper plea bargaining, and ineffective assistance—failed on the merits. The district court also held that Mr. Knittel’s Franks hearing claim was procedurally barred because it had already been decided on direct review. Mr. Knittel filed a timely request for COA.