Evans v. Poppel

Tenth Circuit

Evans v. Poppel

136 F. App'x 160

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJune 17, 2005

Docket04-5181

StatusPublished

This text of 136 F. App'x 160 (Evans v. Poppel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Evans v. Poppel, 136 F. App'x 160 (10th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

*161 ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING APPEAL

TERRENCE L. O’BRIEN, Circuit Judge.

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. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner-Appellant David Evans, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) allowing him to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because we determine that Evans has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000), we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.

The parties are familiar with the facts, and we need not restate them here. On appeal, Evans reasserts the claims he presented below, specifically that (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove the essential elements of trafficking in drugs (after former conviction of two or more felonies), and (2) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After careful consideration of the materials submitted by Evans against a backdrop of the state court record, it is apparent the conclusions of the district court are not reasonably debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); R. Docs. 15, 16.

For substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court, we DENY Evans’ request for a COA and DISMISS the appeal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*161 ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING APPEAL

TERRENCE L. O’BRIEN, Circuit Judge.

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. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner-Appellant David Evans, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) allowing him to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because we determine that Evans has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000), we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.

The parties are familiar with the facts, and we need not restate them here. On appeal, Evans reasserts the claims he presented below, specifically that (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove the essential elements of trafficking in drugs (after former conviction of two or more felonies), and (2) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After careful consideration of the materials submitted by Evans against a backdrop of the state court record, it is apparent the conclusions of the district court are not reasonably debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); R. Docs. 15, 16.

For substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court, we DENY Evans’ request for a COA and DISMISS the appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 F. App'x 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-poppel-ca10-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack