United States v. Kenneth Lynn Lloyd, 153 F.3d 729, 10th Cir. (1998)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Kenneth Lynn Lloyd, 153 F.3d 729, 10th Cir. (1998)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs153 F.
3d 729
98 CJ C.A.R. 3624
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a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.
Kenneth Lynn LLOYD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 97-7110.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
June 30, 1998.
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BRORBY and BRISCOE, Circuit
Judges.
1ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
2
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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Kenneth Lloyd, a pro se prisoner, appeals from the district court order
dismissing his petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255. We deny his motion
for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Mr. Lloyd was convicted and is currently serving a prison sentence for being a
felon in possession of a firearm shipped and transported in interstate commerce
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). In his petition for relief he asserted six
grounds of error and contended the judgment and sentence of the district court
were unlawful. The district court concluded that Mr. Lloyd's section 2255
petition raised the exact issues he alleged in his direct appeal, in which this
court affirmed his conviction on all grounds. See United States v. Lloyd, 13
F.3d 1450 (10th Cir.1994). The court then dismissed the petition on the ground
that a defendant may not collaterally address issues raised unsuccessfully on
direct appeal absent a supervening change in the law. See United States v.
Warner, 23 F.3d 287, 291 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Cook, 997 F.2d
1312, 1318 n. 6 (10th Cir.1993); United States v. Prichard, 875 F.2d 789, 791
(10th Cir.1989).
5
Although Mr. Lloyd alluded in his section 2255 petition to ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel, an examination of the record reveals that Mr.
Lloyd failed to support this claim with any facts which would distinguish it
from his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, which we rejected on
direct appeal.
On any application for collateral review, a certificate of appealability will issue
only if the "applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right." United States v. Simmonds, 111 F.3d 737, 746 (10th
Cir.1997). We agree with the district court's determination that Mr. Lloyd's
petition is entirely duplicative of his direct appeal. Because Mr. Lloyd's petition
raises no issues which differ from those raised as part of his direct appeal, he
has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
The certificate of appealability is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, or 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
