Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    United States v. Amos Elmer Perkins, 161 F.3d 19, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order and judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the case of United States v. Amos Elmer Perkins. The order denies Perkins' request for a certificate of appealability and motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Perkins argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and on direct appeal because his counsel failed to challenge a four-point sentencing enhancement. However, the Tenth Circuit concludes Perkins did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required, so it denies the certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Amos Elmer Perkins, 161 F.3d 19, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    20 views2 pages
    This document is an order and judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the case of United States v. Amos Elmer Perkins. The order denies Perkins' request for a certificate of appealability and motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Perkins argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and on direct appeal because his counsel failed to challenge a four-point sentencing enhancement. However, the Tenth Circuit concludes Perkins did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required, so it denies the certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-09-15 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 161 F.3d 19 Docket: 97-7118

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an order and judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the case of United States v. Amos Elmer Perkins. The order denies Perkins' request for a certificate of appealability and motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Perkins argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and on direct appeal because his counsel failed to challenge a four-point sentencing enhancement. However, the Tenth Circuit concludes Perkins did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required, so it denies the certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    20 views2 pages

    United States v. Amos Elmer Perkins, 161 F.3d 19, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order and judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the case of United States v. Amos Elmer Perkins. The order denies Perkins' request for a certificate of appealability and motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Perkins argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and on direct appeal because his counsel failed to challenge a four-point sentencing enhancement. However, the Tenth Circuit concludes Perkins did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required, so it denies the certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    161 F.

    3d 19
    98 CJ C.A.R. 4846
    NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
    unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
    material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
    argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
    November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
    further order.

    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,


    v.
    Amos Elmer PERKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 97-7118.
    (D.C. No. 97-CV-351-S)

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    Sept. 15, 1998.

    Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.


    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    HENRY, Circuit Judge.

    After examining defendant's brief and the appellate record, this panel has
    determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
    determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The
    case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    Defendant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to vacate,
    set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Because the motion was
    filed after the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
    Act of 1996, our review is conditioned upon the issuance of a certificate of
    appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253. See United States v. Kunzman, 125
    F.3d 1363, 1364 n. 2 (10th Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 1375,
    140 L.Ed.2d 523 (1998).

    Defendant argues that this court should issue a certificate of appealability


    because he was denied effective assistance of counsel at sentencing and on
    direct appeal. According to defendant, counsel should have challenged a fourpoint sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(5).

    Based upon our review, we conclude that defendant has not "made a substantial
    showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2).
    Therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED, and the appeal is
    DISMISSED. Defendant's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. The
    mandate shall issue forthwith.

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
    law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally
    disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and
    judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3

    You might also like