FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 17, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 19-1453 v. (D.C. No.1:11-CR-00184-WJM-1) (D. Colo.) LEON HENDERSON ASKEW,

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER * _________________________________

Before LUCERO, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

After a conviction on drug-and-gun charges, 1 Mr. Leon Askew

unsuccessfully moved to vacate his sentence. He then filed two requests for

a “Franks hearing,” which is a hearing on the veracity of an affidavit

submitted in order to obtain a warrant. United States v. Kennedy, 131 F.3d 1371, 1376 (10th Cir. 1997). The district court denied both requests, and

Mr. Askew wants to appeal the second denial of a Franks hearing.

* This order does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). 1 See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(i), § 924(c)(1)(A); 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). To appeal, Mr. Askew needs a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B). We can issue the certificate only if Mr. Askew’s appellate

argument is reasonably debatable. Laurson v. Leyba, 507 F.3d 1230, 1232

(10th Cir. 2007).

In our view, Mr. Askew fails to satisfy this standard. He argues that

the district court should have granted his second request for a Franks

hearing. If this argument is proven, it could support vacatur of the sentence

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. But Mr. Askew has already filed a § 2255 motion

and obtained a ruling on the merits. So any new § 2255 motion would be

second or successive, and the district court would lack jurisdiction in the

absence of authorization to file a second-or-successive § 2255 motion. In

re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

Mr. Askew hasn’t stated any grounds for authorization. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(h). So his appellate argument isn’t reasonably debatable and we

can’t issue a certificate of appealability. Given the absence of a certificate

of appealability, we dismiss the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 2

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

2 We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

2