Court Opinion

ID: 171323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-08-14 18:31:48+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:12.934286
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                      Tenth Circuit

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                  October 16, 2008
                                                                 Elisabeth A. Shumaker
                                TENTH CIRCUIT                        Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

             Plaintiff - Appellee,                      No. 08-5092
                                                     (N.D. Oklahoma)
v.                                          (D.C. Nos. 4:08-CV-00317-JHP-SAJ
                                                and 4:05-CR-00152-JHP-2)
UNRICO RANIER MINNERS,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                      ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE
                          OF APPEALABILITY

Before BRISCOE, MURPHY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

      Unrico Minners, a federal prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability

(“COA”) so he can appeal the district court’s denial of the motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct sentence he brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (providing a movant may not appeal the denial of a § 2255

motion unless the movant first obtains a COA). Minners pleaded guilty to four

charges stemming from a crime of violence committed in 2005. See United States

v. Minners, 211 Fed. App’x 742, at *1 (10th Cir. 2007). Minners’s direct appeal

was dismissed by this court on January 4, 2007. Id. The instant § 2255 motion

was filed on May 27, 2008. In the motion, Minners asserted claims that his

counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. The district court
dismissed Minners’s § 2255 motion sua sponte, concluding the motion was filed

outside the one-year limitation period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

      In his appellate brief, Minners argues the merits of the claims he seeks to

raise in his § 2255 motion. He does not address the district court’s procedural

ruling and presents no argument that the district court miscalculated the one-year

period.

      To be entitled to a COA, Minners must show “that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474, 484-85 (2000) (holding that when a district

court dismisses a habeas petition on procedural grounds, a petitioner is entitled to

a COA only if he shows both that reasonable jurists would find it debatable

whether he had stated a valid constitutional claim and debatable whether the

district court’s procedural ruling was correct). Our review of the record

demonstrates that the district court’s dismissal of Minners’s § 2255 motion as

untimely is not deserving of further proceedings or subject to a different

resolution on appeal. Accordingly, we deny Minners’s request for a COA and

dismiss this appeal.

                                                ENTERED FOR THE COURT

                                                Elisabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk

                                          -2-