Filed: Jun. 07, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 7, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 11-6049 v. (W.D. Oklahoma) ROY DEAN BULLCOMING, (D.C. Nos. 5:10-CV-00606-F and 5:08-CR-00055-F-1) Defendant - Appellant. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. Roy Dean Bullcoming seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of hi
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 7, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 11-6049 v. (W.D. Oklahoma) ROY DEAN BULLCOMING, (D.C. Nos. 5:10-CV-00606-F and 5:08-CR-00055-F-1) Defendant - Appellant. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. Roy Dean Bullcoming seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
June 7, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 11-6049
v. (W.D. Oklahoma)
ROY DEAN BULLCOMING, (D.C. Nos. 5:10-CV-00606-F and
5:08-CR-00055-F-1)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Roy Dean Bullcoming seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal
the denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (requiring COA to appeal denial of relief under § 2255). “A
certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). This standard requires “a demonstration that . . . includes showing
that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues
presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v.
McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other
words, an applicant must show that the district court’s resolution of the
constitutional claim was either “debatable or wrong.”
Id.
No reasonable jurist could debate the resolution of Mr. Bullcoming’s
§ 2255 motion in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See
United States v. Bullcoming, No. CR-08-0055-F,
2011 WL 195652 (W.D. Okla.
Jan. 18, 2011). We therefore deny his application for a COA and dismiss the
appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-2-