FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
October 23, 2014
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSElisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 14-1277
(D. Colorado)
JACK DOWELL, (D.C. Nos. 1:07-CV-02002-RPM
& 1:01-CR-00395-RPM-3)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER
Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Mr Jack Dowell was convicted in 2003 on federal charges of destroying
government property by fire and forcibly interfering with the Internal Revenue
Service. After unsuccessfully challenging the conviction on direct appeal and in a
motion to vacate the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Mr. Dowell moved to
reopen the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), claiming a defect in the
§ 2255 proceedings. The district court denied the motion, and our court declined
to issue a certificate of appealability. Here Mr. Dowell repeats the same
arguments in again requesting a certificate of appealability. We again decline to
issue the certificate.
Mr. Dowell’s Prior Request
The § 2255 motion involved sixteen claims. 1 The federal district court
appointed counsel, then denied relief. In the ruling, however, the district court did
not rule on some of the claims.
Mr. Dowell invoked Rule 60(b)(4), asking for a ruling on the remaining
claims and return to his “original standing” with counsel. The district court
denied relief on each claim, but declined to reappoint counsel for Mr. Dowell.
He sought a certificate of appealability, arguing in part that the district court
should have reappointed counsel and provided an opportunity to testify. This
court denied Mr. Dowell’s request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed
the appeal. Order Denying Certificate of Appealability, United States v. Dowell,
No. 13-1357, 2014 WL 1363970 (10th Cir. Apr. 8, 2014) (unpublished).
Mr. Dowell’s New Request
Mr. Dowell again seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district
court’s failure to reappoint counsel and reconvene the evidentiary hearing. We
deny the request for a certificate of appealability.
In the prior request for a certificate, Mr. Dowell made virtually identical
arguments. Our court considered these arguments and denied the request. In his
new application, Mr. Dowell has not provided any reason for us to revisit our prior
1
Mr. Dowell stated there were fifteen claims, but there were actually sixteen.
2
decision. Accordingly, we deny the request for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
In Forma Pauperis
Mr. Dowell seeks not only a certificate of appealability, but also leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. With dismissal of the appeal, Mr. Dowell is relieved
of the duty to pay the filing fee. Thus, we dismiss his application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on the ground of mootness. Johnson v. Keith, 726 F.3d
1134, 1136 (10th Cir. 2013) (denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the
ground of mootness upon denial of a certificate of appealability).
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
3