FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 4, 2011
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v. No. 10-3244
(D.C. Nos. 2:03-CR-20051-JWL-DJW-
1 and 2:08-CV-02295-JWL)
CARLOS PORTILLO-QUEZADA,
(D. Kan.)
a/k/a Luis Quezada,
Defendant–Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Defendant seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition. Defendant was convicted on
multiple counts relating to a drug-distribution conspiracy, and his conviction and
sentence were affirmed by this court on direct appeal. See United States v.
Portillo-Quezada, 469 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir. 2006). In his habeas petition,
Defendant raised ten claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
court concluded Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of these claims and
accordingly dismissed the petition.
After carefully reviewing Defendant’s brief and the record on appeal, we
conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate whether the district court erred
in dismissing the petition. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). As
the district court correctly concluded, none of Defendant’s claims, considered
either individually or cumulatively, reflected constitutionally deficient or
prejudicial performance by trial counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687-88 (1984). Therefore, for substantially the same reasons explained by
the district court, we DENY the application for a certificate of appealability and
DISMISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-2-