Filed: Jun. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 30, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 15-1124 v. (D.C. Nos. 1:14-CV-03159-RBJ and 1:12-CR-00149-RBJ-1 ) JOSE LUJAN-LOPEZ, (D. Colorado) Defendant - Appellant. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Before, HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. Defendant José Lujan-Lopez seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 30, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 15-1124 v. (D.C. Nos. 1:14-CV-03159-RBJ and 1:12-CR-00149-RBJ-1 ) JOSE LUJAN-LOPEZ, (D. Colorado) Defendant - Appellant. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Before, HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. Defendant José Lujan-Lopez seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the ..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 30, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 15-1124
v. (D.C. Nos. 1:14-CV-03159-RBJ and
1:12-CR-00149-RBJ-1 )
JOSE LUJAN-LOPEZ, (D. Colorado)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Before, HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
Defendant José Lujan-Lopez seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal
the denial of his motion for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 by the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado. To obtain a COA he must show “that reasonable
jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the [motion] 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 our view, no court could improve upon the district
court’s thorough, cogent, and sensitive opinion denying relief. To address an argument
Defendant makes on appeal, we add only that Defendant could not obtain an offense-
level decrease of more than two levels for acceptance of responsibility without a
supporting motion by the government. See USSG § 3E1.1(b). For the reasons stated in
the district court’s opinion, which we attach and incorporate, we deny a COA and dismiss
the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
2