United States v. Trujillo

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

United States v. Trujillo

Opinion

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 1999 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 99-2045 JEANETTE M. TRUJILLO, (D.C. No. CIV-98-1051-JC) (D. N.M.) Defendant-Appellant.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BALDOCK, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.**

Defendant Jeanette M. Trujillo pled guilty in federal district court to armed

bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Plaintiff

did not move to withdraw her guilty plea and did not perfect a direct criminal appeal.

Instead, Plaintiff filed a petition to vacate her sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the

district court claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. According to Plaintiff, defense

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. ** After examining the briefs and 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)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. counsel failed to properly advise her as to the consequences of her guilty plea. In a

thorough Memorandum Opinion and Order, the district court summarily dismissed the

petition. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Petitions. Now before us is

Plaintiff’s application for a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

A defendant may appeal the denial of a § 2255 petition only if “a circuit justice or

judge” issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of

appealability “may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). We conclude that Petitioner has failed

to make the required showing.

We have thoroughly reviewed Defendant’s application for a certificate of

appealability, her brief, the district court’s order, and the entire record before us. We

conclude the Plaintiff’s claims are meritless substantially for the reasons set forth in the

district court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the petition. Because

Plaintiff has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we

deny her request for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished