F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 12 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-3383
(D.C. No. 00-3186-MLB)
GLENN L. GREEN, (D. Kan.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY , Circuit Judge, BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge, and BARRETT ,
Circuit Judge.
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.
Glenn L. Green appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion. In order for Mr. Green to proceed on appeal, he must
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
obtain a certificate of appealability (COA). See id. § 2253(c)(1)(B). We may
grant him a COA only if he “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). This demonstration “includes showing
that reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . 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) (quotation omitted).
In his appeal brief, Mr. Green raises the following issues:
I. Green asserts actual innocence.
II. Green’s trial counsel suffered an actual conflict of interest in
violation of Green’s Sixth Amendment rights.
III. The District Court denied Green’s Sixth Amendment right to
conflict free counsel when it failed to inquire as to the
existence of a conflict of interest.
IV. Green’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated when trial
counsel failed to allow Green to testify in his own behalf at
trial.
V. Green’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of
counsel was violated when counsel failed to conduct an
adequate investigation.
VI. The District Court’s assessment of many of the issues of
Green’s § 2255 Motion would be found by reasonable jurists to
be debatable or wrong.
Aplt. Br. at 2.
-2-
In his application for certificate of appealability, Mr. Green indicates that
he seeks a COA as to issues II - V, identified above. Having carefully reviewed
Mr. Green’s brief, his application for COA, the record including his appendix and
addendum, and the applicable law, we conclude that Mr. Green has failed to show
his entitlement to a COA under the above-described standards.
We therefore DENY COA and DISMISS this appeal. Mr. Green’s motion
to correct and supplement the record, to the extent not otherwise granted on
June 6, 2001, is denied.
Entered for the Court
James E. Barrett
Senior Circuit Judge
-3-