FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 14, 2008
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 08-2125
v. (D. of N.M.)
RANDALL ZUNIE, (D.C. Nos. 1:07-CV-00671-WJ-CG
and 1:03-CR-01453-WJ-1)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before LUCERO, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. **
Randall Zunie is a federal prisoner serving a ten-year sentence for assault
resulting in serious bodily injury, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6) and 1153.
We affirmed his convictions on direct appeal in United States v. Zunie, 444 F.3d
1230 (10th Cir. 2006). Proceeding pro se, he now seeks a certificate of
appealability (COA) to challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 1 The district
court denied all of Zunie’s claims and his subsequent request for a COA.
We agree Zunie is not entitled to relief under § 2255 and therefore DENY
his request for a COA.
I. Background
The more detailed facts of this case are set forth in our earlier opinion,
Zunie, 444 F.3d 1230, therefore we only briefly summarize the pertinent issues.
In 2003, Zunie, after becoming intoxicated late one evening, drove his vehicle
recklessly and caused a head-on collision. Because he seriously injured the three
occupants of the other vehicle, he was charged and convicted with the federal
offense of assault resulting in serious bodily injury (under the Indian Major
Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1151 et seq.).
When sentencing Zunie, the trial court adopted the factual findings of the
pre-sentence report (PSR) that calculated his base offense level at fifteen. The
PSR added an additional eight levels under the United States Sentencing
Guidelines because one of the victims had sustained permanent injuries and
because Zunie had made false statements to police. Because of the gravity of the
offense and the victims’ injuries, the district court departed upwards fifteen levels
from the recommended level of twenty-three, meaning Zunie faced a sentencing
1
Because Zunie proceeds pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally.
United States v. Warner, 23 F.3d 287, 290 (10th Cir. 1994).
-2-
range of 235 to 293 months. However, because the statutory maximum for the
underlying offense was only 120 months, the court sentenced him to that
maximum. 2 We affirmed the sentence on appeal.
Zunie then filed a § 2255 motion to vacate the sentence and conviction in
federal district court. In particular, he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel
and constitutional errors in sentencing. The district court denied the motion and
his subsequent request for a COA, finding the sentencing issues were procedurally
barred and lacked merit, and that he had failed to overcome the presumption of
effective assistance of counsel. Zunie now seeks a COA from this court on
substantially similar grounds. 3
II. Discussion
Before a district court’s denial of a motion for relief pursuant to § 2255
may be appealed, either the district court or this court must issue a COA. 28
U.S.C. § 2255(c)(1)(B). To obtain a COA, a petitioner must make a “substantial
2
The trial court also imposed an alternative sentence of 120 months in the
event the Guidelines were later determined to be unconstitutional.
3
As an initial matter, Zunie asserts the district court erroneously failed to
specifically enumerate its reasons for denying his COA. However, the district
court stated it was adopting the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommended disposition that clearly articulated the reasons for denying Zunie’s
§ 2255 motion. The district court was not required to provide a separate analysis
of why Zunie had failed to make the necessary showing under § 2253(c)(2). See
United States v. Montes-Felix, 186 F. App’x 839, 840 n.2 (10th Cir. July 5, 2006).
Also, Zunie separately appeals the denial of his § 2255 motion and the denial of a
COA. We treat his appeals as a combined application to this court for a COA.
United States v. Gordon, 172 F.3d 753, 753–54 (10th Cir. 1999).
-3-
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). In order to satisfy this standard, the
petitioner must demonstrate 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). In
reviewing a denial of a § 2255 motion, we review the district court’s legal rulings
de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Orange, 447 F.3d
792, 796 (10th Cir. 2006).
Zunie has failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2). First, he argues the trial court committed
constitutional Booker 4 error by imposing a fifteen-level enhancement to his
sentence. Because we already resolved this issue on direct appeal, Zunie, 444
F.3d at 1236–38, Zunie may not raise it again in a § 2255 petition. See Warner,
23 F.3d at 291; United States v. Prichard, 875 F.2d 789, 791 (10th Cir. 1989).
Second, Zunie argues the trial court imposed an illegal sentence. To the
extent this argument mirrors his Booker claim, we already addressed it in his
direct appeal and decline to do so again. He additionally contends the trial court
improperly imposed an “additional punishment” of three years of supervised
release over and above the statutory maximum term. With minor exceptions not
4
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
-4-
applicable here, we generally do not address arguments presented for the first
time on appeal. See United States v. Mora, 293 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2002);
Oyler v. Allenbrand, 23 F.3d 292, 299 n.8 (10th Cir. 1994). Consequently,
because Zunie failed to raise this contention in his § 2255 motion before the
district court, we decline to address it in this appeal.
Finally, Zunie contends his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance
of counsel was violated. When a petitioner claims ineffective assistance of
counsel, it is a mixed question of law and fact which we review de novo. Orange,
447 F.3d at 796. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the
petitioner must show his attorney’s performance was deficient and that the
deficient performance was prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
687 (1984). First, for an attorney’s performance to be considered deficient, a
petitioner must show that, considering all the circumstances, “counsel’s
representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland,
466 U.S. at 688; Barkell v. Crouse, 468 F.3d 684, 689 (10th Cir. 2006) (stating
counsel’s performance “must have been completely unreasonable, not merely
wrong” (quotation omitted)). A strong presumption prevails that counsel
provided effective assistance and the petitioner has the burden of proof to
overcome that presumption. United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187, 1197 (10th
Cir. 2000).
-5-
Second, to demonstrate that the attorney’s performance was prejudicial, the
petitioner “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Such reasonable probability must be “sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. A claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel “may be resolved on either performance or prejudice grounds alone.”
Kennedy, 225 F.3d at 1197. Finally, conclusory assertions are insufficient to
establish ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Fisher, 38 F.3d 1144,
1147 (10th Cir. 1994).
According to Zunie, his attorney failed to properly present a Blakely 5
argument and failed to investigate his assertion he was not the driver of the
vehicle at the time of the collision. We have reviewed Zunie’s briefs and
appellate record and find, for substantially the same reasons as contained in the
magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommended disposition, he has failed
to overcome the presumption his attorney provided effective assistance and has
not shown prejudice. 6 As to the Blakely argument, Zunie contends his trial
counsel should have continued to raise objections to the judge-imposed
sentencing enhancement under the Guidelines. Zunie’s counsel, however, did
5
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).
6
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendation in its April 4, 2008 Order.
-6-
object and stated “what we need to have is the jury doing the fact-finding as
opposed to the judge.” R., Vol. I, at 78; id. at 205–06. We find his counsel’s
failure to continue to raise this argument repeatedly during sentencing was not
objectively unreasonable. Similarly, Zunie’s attorney did investigate his
contention that another individual was driving his truck at the time of the
collision and concluded this avenue was “fruitless.” Id. at 207. Zunie makes no
particularized allegations in his motion or appeal and his merely conclusory
assertions his attorney failed to investigate and introduce possible exculpatory
evidence are meritless and therefore not sufficient to establish ineffective
assistance of counsel.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Zunie has not made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right and we DENY his request for a COA and
DISMISS this appeal. We further DENY Zunie’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis.
Entered for the Court
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Circuit Judge
-7-