F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 3 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 97-3276
v. (D.C. No. 97-CV-3167)
JAMES R. CRUCE, (D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Mr. James Cruce (Defendant) pled guilty to one count of conspiracy in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 371 and three counts of felony bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344.
Defendant was sentenced to 168 months incarceration and was ordered to pay eight
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
million dollars in restitution. Defendant filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court
denied the motion, finding that Defendant had not met the requirements to show
ineffective assistance of counsel. See Appellant’s Br. App. at 240 (District Court’s
Memorandum and Order). Defendant then filed a Request for a Certificate of
Appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B), which the district court denied. See
id. at 279.
We have reviewed the district court’s orders of August 14, 1997, and
September 25, 1997; Defendant’s brief and application for a certificate of appealability;
and the entire record before us. Defendant’s allegations of ineffective assistance of
counsel are insufficient to establish a claim under the standard established in Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). See Lasiter v. Thomas, 89 F.3d 699, 703-04
(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 493 (1996). We conclude that Defendant has failed to
make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2), for the same reasons set forth in the district court’s order of September 25,
1997. Accordingly, we DENY Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability
and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
2