FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT December 26, 2012
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 12-6206
(D.C. No. 5:01-CR-00181-M-2)
JASON TODD DAVIS, (W.D. Okla.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
AND DENYING LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE
28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION
Before LUCERO, O'BRIEN, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
In 2008, Jason Todd Davis filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel. Approximately two and one half years later he sought to amend
the § 2255 motion. The district court denied the relief originally sought and denied leave
to amend because the request was not timely presented. Davis sought a Certificate of
Appealability (COA) on both issues, which we denied. United States v. Davis, 426 F.
App’x 622, 625 (10th Cir. 2011).
About a year after our decision, Davis filed a Rule 60(b) motion resurrecting his
arguments about the district court’s refusal to permit him to amend his § 2255 motion.
He included four new claims under § 2255. The district court denied the motion. Davis
appealed from the decision.
A COA is required to appeal from the denial of a true Rule 60(b) motion. Spitznas
v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir. 2006). Davis did not seek a COA, but we treat
his notice of appeal and brief as an implied request for a COA. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2).
We deny his request for a COA.
Davis’s new § 2255 claims are second or successive, requiring our approval before
they can be addressed by the district court. In re Shines, 696 F.3d 1330, 1332 (10th Cir.
2012). His claims are utterly without merit; we deny leave to pursue them.
DISMISSED.
Entered by the Court:
Terrence L. O’Brien
United States Circuit Judge
-2-