F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 28 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 99-5236
v. (N. District of Oklahoma)
(D.C. No. 98-CV-556-B)
TIM LANDRY,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This case is before the court on Tim Landry’s request for a certificate of
appealability (“COA”). Landry seeks a COA so that he can appeal the district
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)
(providing that a COA is a necessary predicate to an appeal from the denial of a
§ 2255 petition). Landry is entitled to a COA only upon making “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See id. § 2253(c)(2). He can
make such a showing by demonstrating that the district court’s resolution of the
issues he seeks to raise on appeal are reasonably debatable, subject to a different
resolution on appeal, or otherwise deserving of further proceedings. See Barefoot
v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983). In his § 2255 petition, Landry broadly
asserted that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that both his trial
and appellate counsel were ineffective. In an exceedingly thorough Order, the
district court cited to controlling Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit authority and
rejected each of Landry’s claims on the merits. This court has conducted an
equally thorough de novo review of Landry’s request for a COA and
accompanying brief, the district court’s Order, and the entire record on appeal.
After such review, this court has nothing to add to the district court’s clear,
comprehensive, and correct resolution of Landry’s claims. Accordingly, this
court DENIES Landry’s request for a COA for substantially those reasons set
-2-
forth in the district court’s Order dated November 15, 1999, and DISMISSES this
appeal. Landry’s motion for bail pending resolution of this appeal is DENIED as
moot.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT:
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-