F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 3 2002
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 02-3008
v. (D.C. Nos. 01-CV-3252-RDR,
98-CR-40116-02-RDR)
JUSTINO HERNANDEZ- (D. Kansas)
DOMINGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This is a pro se § 2255 prisoner appeal. Mr. Hernandez-Dominguez was
convicted of possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy with intent to
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
distribute methamphetamine. He was sentenced to two concurrent 188-month
sentences. We affirmed his conviction on appeal in United States v. Hernandez-
Dominguez, No. 99-3305, 2001 WL 13278 (10th Cir. Jan. 5, 2001). In this §
2255 motion, Mr. Hernandez-Dominguez seeks to vacate his sentence based on
several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no merit in any of
Mr. Hernandez-Dominguez’s arguments, the district court denied the § 2255
motion on the merits. The district court also declined to grant him a certificate of
appealability. Appellant then applied to this court for a certificate of
appealability.
In order for this court to grant a certificate of appealability, Appellant must
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). To do so, Appellant must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists could
debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been
resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000) (quotations omitted).
We have carefully reviewed Mr. Hernandez-Dominguez’s brief, the district
court’s disposition, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on
appeal, or Appellant’s brief raises an issue which meets our standards for the
grant of a certificate of appealability. For substantially the same reasons as set
-2-
forth by the district court in its Order of August 16, 2001, we cannot say that
“reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner.” Id. We DENY
Appellant’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-