F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
December 28, 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 04-8122
v. (D.C. Nos. 03-CV-180-ABJ and 99-
CR-135-ABJ)
DAVID BLOOMGREN, (D. Wyo.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER
Before EBEL, McKAY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
This is a pro se prisoner appeal. Mr. Bloomgren was convicted by a jury of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession with
intent to distribute methamphetamine, distribution of methamphetamine, and
being a felon in possession of a firearm. Mr. Bloomgren was sentenced to 360
months’ and 120 months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently. These
sentences were affirmed by this court on appeal in 2002. United States v.
Bloomgren, 42 F. App’x 147 (10th Cir. 2002). Subsequently, Mr. Bloomgren
filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence with the district
court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In his § 2255 motion, Mr. Bloomgren asserted
various claims for relief. A majority of the claims involved ineffective assistance
of counsel. The additional claims alleged sentencing error, advanced several
procedurally barred claims, and challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1). After reviewing Mr. Bloomgren’s claims, the district court denied his
§ 2255 motion. Mr. Bloomgren now applies to this court for a certificate of
appealability. The issues he raises on appeal are identical to those brought before
the district court.
For this court to grant a certificate of appealability, Mr. Bloomgren must
make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). To do so, Mr. Bloomgren 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) (internal quotations omitted).
We have carefully reviewed Mr. Bloomgren’s brief, the district court’s
disposition, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal,
or Mr. Bloomgren’s filing raises an issue which meets our standard for the grant
of a certificate of appealability. For substantially the same reasons set forth by
the district court in its November 3, 2004 Order, 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.
-2-
We DENY Mr. Bloomgren’s request for a certificate of appealability and
DISMISS the appeal. *
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
*
Having determined that Mr. Bloomgren is ineligible for a certificate of
appeal, we need not address his Motion to Modify and/or Supplement the Record.
-3-