FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 29, 2017
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 17-3115
v. (D.C. Nos. 6:17-CV-01001-JTM and
6:04-CR-10244-JTM-1)
PETER PAUL AMAN, (D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
_________________________________
Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Defendant-Appellant Peter Paul Aman, a federal inmate appearing pro se, seeks a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. United States v. Aman, No. 6:04-CR-
10244-JTM, 2017 WL 1437313 (D. Kan. Apr. 24, 2017). To obtain a COA, Mr. Aman
must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2); see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000). Because Mr. Aman
has not made such a showing, we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.
In 2005, Mr. Aman pled guilty and was sentenced to 15 years for unlawful receipt
and distribution of child pornography. 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). Mr. Aman sought to
appeal, but we granted the government’s motion to enforce the plea agreement which
contains a waiver of the right to appeal or collaterally attack. United States v. Aman, No.
05-3161 (10th Cir. Nov. 9, 2005).
Mr. Aman again proceeds under § 2255 alleging that provisions in the statutory
and sentencing guidelines punishing child pornography are similarly vague to those
found unconstitutional in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). He also
contends that a recent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines should result in a
reduction of his sentence. The district court granted the government’s motion to enforce
the plea agreement waiver and dismissed Mr. Aman’s § 2225 motion and denied a COA.
Aman, 2017 WL 1437313 at *2.
For this court to grant a COA, Mr. Aman must show 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, 529
U.S. at 484 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). On appeal, Mr. Aman
renews his contentions, and specifically argues that Amendment 801 to the Sentencing
Guidelines should result in the removal of a five-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. §
2G2.2. The district court correctly applied the Hahn factors to determine the
enforceability of the waiver. United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir.
2004). Its conclusions that the waiver applies and that, in any event, Amendment 801 is
not retroactive, are not reasonably debatable.
2
We therefore DENY Mr. Aman’s request for a COA, DENY his request to
proceed IFP, and DISMISS his appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
3