Court Opinion

ID: 9930716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 17:00:47.029991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:23.392519
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3015     Document: 010110996296         Date Filed: 02/07/2024      Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                             February 7, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                              Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                  Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                            No. 23-3015
                                                       (D.C. No. 6:13-CV-01448-JTM
  RAYMOND L. ROGERS,                                     & 6:10-CR10186-JWB-1)
                                                                  (D. Kan.)
        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
                          _________________________________

 Before McHUGH, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

        Petitioner Raymond Rogers, appearing pro se, seeks to appeal the district court’s

 denial of a certificate of appealability (“COA”). For the reasons stated below, we dismiss

 this appeal. We also deny Defendant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

                                             I.

        In December 2011, a jury convicted Petitioner of bank robbery, possessing and

 brandishing a firearm in the furtherance of a violent crime, and being a felon in

        *
          After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
 appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered
 submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
 except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may
 be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and
 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-3015      Document: 010110996296          Date Filed: 02/07/2024      Page: 2

 possession of a firearm. We affirmed. United States v. Rogers, 520 F. App’x 727 (10th

 Cir. 2013) (unpublished). In 2013, Petitioner brought a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

 claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied this motion. In

 2014, Petitioner timely sought a COA to appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2255

 motion, which we denied. United States v. Rogers, 599 F. App’x 850 (10th Cir. 2015)

 (unpublished). Petitioner has tried and failed multiple times to seek leave from this court

 to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.

        Relevant here, on December 16, 2022, Petitioner moved for leave to amend his

 2014 COA for his original § 2255 motion. The district court denied the motion for leave

 to amend. In a text entry order, the district court also denied a COA for the motion for

 leave to amend his 2014 COA. Petitioner now seeks to appeal the district court’s denial

 of his COA for the motion for leave to amend.

                                              II.

        It is well-settled that we do not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s

 denial of a COA. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b)(1), “[i]f the district

 judge has denied the certificate, the applicant may request a circuit judge to issue it.”

 Here, Petitioner does not seek a COA from this Court, and instead, appeals the district

 court’s denial of his COA. Petitioner argues that the district court “committed an error of

 law when it denied [him] a COA” because the district court entered a text entry order and

 “failed to apply the correct COA determination standard.” As discussed above, we do not

 have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of his COA and, therefore, dismiss

 it.

                                               2
Appellate Case: 23-3015     Document: 010110996296        Date Filed: 02/07/2024     Page: 3

       We also deny Petitioner’s in forma pauperis request because he failed to show the

 existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the facts in support of the issue he

 raised on appeal. See DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991).

       We DISMISS this appeal and DENY Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma

 pauperis. We DENY Petitioner’s motion to expedite as MOOT.

       APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Joel M. Carson III
                                              Circuit Judge

                                             3