Unpublished Decisions

U.S. v. Holcomb, 2010 WL 1242805 (4/1/10) (unpub'd) - The 2255 movant's claim that Begay required a different interpretation of the guidelines than was made at the time of his sentencing alleged only a non-constitutional error, (while a Chambers claim that the ACCA was wrongly applied to increase the maximum sentence was a constitutional due process claim). The movant was therefore not entitled to a certificate of appealability.

U.S. v. Wright, 2010 WL 1172606 (3/29/10) (unpub'd) - The 10th finds no abuse of discretion when the district court refused to consider the defendant's pro se letter complaining about the sentence because the defendant was represented by an attorney. Consequently, the defendant's protesting letter did not constitute a notice of appeal. As a result, the defendant's subsequent attempt to appeal was untimely.

U.S. v. Harrison, 2010 WL 1225617 (3/31/10) (unpub'd) - The 2255 movant's allegation that counsel told him he need not worry about the high sentence because it would all get corrected on appeal, and then failed to file a notice of appeal, was not detailed enough to state a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Muniz v. Richardson, 10th Cir. No. 2229 (3/31/10) (unpub'd) - In a challenge to the New Mexico prison system, the 10th held that the fact that prisoners do not enjoy the food that is served and that they are subject to repeated TV programs as a harassment tool do not establish 8th Amendment violations.