COAs for 2255 Petitioners Denied in Two Cases
U.S. v. Bolden, --- F.3d ----, 2006 WL 3735557 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2006)
10th denies a Certificate of Appealability (COA) in pro se §2255 petition because it agrees (without ANY discussion) with the district court determination that he received effective assistance of counsel. The 10th also admonished/reminded P that he cannot preserve issues for panel or cert review by raising them for the first time in a §2255 petition, unless “he can show cause excusing his procedural default and actual prejudice resulting from the errors of which he complains, or can show that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will occur if his claim is not addressed.”
U.S. v. Valencia, --- F.3d ----, 2006 WL 3735550 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2006)
10th again denies COA in pro se §2255 petition, this time because it was filed too late and P did not demonstrate that any exceptions applied.
10th denies a Certificate of Appealability (COA) in pro se §2255 petition because it agrees (without ANY discussion) with the district court determination that he received effective assistance of counsel. The 10th also admonished/reminded P that he cannot preserve issues for panel or cert review by raising them for the first time in a §2255 petition, unless “he can show cause excusing his procedural default and actual prejudice resulting from the errors of which he complains, or can show that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will occur if his claim is not addressed.”
U.S. v. Valencia, --- F.3d ----, 2006 WL 3735550 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2006)
10th again denies COA in pro se §2255 petition, this time because it was filed too late and P did not demonstrate that any exceptions applied.
posted by Anonymous at 10:08 AM
<< Home