FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 17, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 08-6216
v. (D.C. Nos. CR-98-93-D and
CV-07-1282-D)
COREY ANTWAN WILSON, (W. D. Oklahoma)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
Corey Wilson, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of
appealability (COA) in order to challenge the district court’s denial of his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. Because Wilson
has failed to satisfy the standards for the issuance of a COA, we deny his request
and dismiss the matter.
I.
On June 3, 1998, Wilson was indicted on six criminal counts, including one
count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
of 21 U.S.C. § 846, four counts of distributing cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of maintaining a place for the distribution and
use of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856. Wilson ultimately
pled guilty to a single count of distribution and, on June 1, 1999, was sentenced
to life imprisonment.
On direct appeal, this court vacated Wilson’s life sentence and remanded
for resentencing due to a drug quantity calculation error. United States v. Wilson,
229 F.3d 1165, 2000 WL 1199101 (10th Cir. Aug. 23, 2000) (unpublished order
and judgment) (Wilson I). In doing so, this court concluded that the evidence
presented at the time of sentencing was insufficient to support the district court’s
“attribut[ion of] 1590.8 grams of crack cocaine to” Wilson, id. at *3, but was
sufficient to support “a total of some 711 grams,” id. at *5. On remand, the
district court, relying on the drug quantity calculations affirmed by this court in
Wilson I, resentenced Wilson to 360 months’ imprisonment. On direct appeal
from the resentencing, this court affirmed the sentence imposed by the district
court. United States v. Wilson, 195 F. App’x 753, 755, 760 (10th Cir. 2006)
(Wilson II). The Supreme Court subsequently denied Wilson’s petition for writ
of certiorari. Wilson v. United States, 549 U.S. 1146 (2007).
On November 13, 2007, Wilson filed a § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside,
or correct sentence asserting that his counsel at resentencing and on appeal from
resentencing were ineffective for failing to challenge the validity of the “pre-
2
Apprendi admission” of he and his counsel that his count of conviction involved
10 grams of crack cocaine. ROA, Vol. 1 at 56-57. In support of his claim,
Wilson cited to the position adopted by the concurring opinion in United States v.
Buonocore, 416 F.3d 1124, 1137 (10th Cir. 2005), that “[a] factual admission by a
defendant that the government can prove drug quantity by a preponderance of the
evidence, without more, simply does not fulfill the requirements of a voluntary
and knowing waiver of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment Apprendi rights.”
The district court denied Wilson’s § 2255 motion on the merits. In doing
so, the district court first noted that the position urged by the concurrence in
Buonocore “was rejected by the majority of the panel” and thus did not represent
controlling Tenth Circuit precedent. ROA, Vol. 1 at 81. More importantly, the
district court noted that in Wilson II, this court agreed with Wilson that the
district court at resentencing violated United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005), by basing his sentence on facts that were neither admitted by him nor
found by a jury, i.e., the 711 gram drug quantity affirmed by this court in Wilson
I, but determined that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because
the district court, at the time of resentencing, “also imposed an identical
alternative sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment in the event the Guidelines were
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.” 195 F. App’x at 755. In light
of these facts, the district court concluded, Wilson was not prejudiced by his
counsel’s failure to challenge the validity of the “pre-Apprendi” admission either
3
at resentencing or upon appeal from resentencing. App, Vol. 1 at 82. More
specifically, the district court concluded that even if Wilson’s counsel had
successfully challenged the validity of his “pre-Apprendi” admission, it “would
not have affected his sentence.” Id.
Wilson has since filed a timely notice of appeal from the district court’s
order denying his § 2255 motion, as well as an application for COA.
II.
The issuance of a COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal from the
denial of a § 2255 motion. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). A
COA may be issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2553(c)(2). To make such a
showing, an applicant 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)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
After reviewing Wilson’s application for COA and the record on appeal, we
conclude he has failed to establish his entitlement to a COA. There is no dispute
that the district court, in resolving Wilson’s § 2255 motion, properly identified
the correct standards for ineffective assistance of counsel claims set forth in
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Further, we are not persuaded
4
that reasonable jurists could debate whether Wilson’s ineffective assistance claim
should have been resolved in a different manner. Indeed, we conclude it is
indisputable, given the procedural history of this case, that Wilson was not
prejudiced by his counsels’ failure to challenge the validity of his “pre-Apprendi”
admission. In short, the record firmly establishes that Wilson’s “pre-Apprendi”
admission had no impact on the sentence ultimately imposed on him by the
district court at resentencing.
The application for COA is DENIED and the matter is DISMISSED.
Wilson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
5