Holman v. Mondragon

Tenth Circuit

Holman v. Mondragon

25 F.3d 1057, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 23047, 1994 WL 232276

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 1994

Docket94-2006

StatusPublished

This text of 25 F.3d 1057 (Holman v. Mondragon) 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

Holman v. Mondragon, 25 F.3d 1057, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 23047, 1994 WL 232276 (10th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

25 F.3d 1057
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument,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.

Shelvin L. HOLMAN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Eloy MONDRAGON, Secretary of Corrections Department; John
Thomas, Warden, Penitentiary of New Mexico; and
Tom Udall, Attorney General, State of
New Mexico, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 94-2006.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

June 1, 1994.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT1

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

The parties have agreed that this case may be submitted for decision on the briefs. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.2. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff appeals from a federal district court's Order adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing Plaintiff's habeas corpus action with prejudice. On appeal, Plaintiff asserts the same arguments that he did to the district court, specifically: 1) that his counsel denied him the opportunity to appeal his original conviction in state court, 2) ineffective assistance of counsel in that his counsel did not object to the composition of the jury, 3) unconstitutional selection of the jury panel, and 4) that he was denied his right to direct appeal. We have reviewed the briefs of both parties, the magistrate judge's recommendation, and the Order by the district court, and we affirm for substantially the same reason given by the magistrate judge.

AFFIRMED.

1

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

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

25 F.3d 1057
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.

Shelvin L. HOLMAN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Eloy MONDRAGON, Secretary of Corrections Department; John
Thomas, Warden, Penitentiary of New Mexico; and
Tom Udall, Attorney General, State of
New Mexico, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 94-2006.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

June 1, 1994.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT1

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

The parties have agreed that this case may be submitted for decision on the briefs. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.2. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff appeals from a federal district court's Order adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing Plaintiff's habeas corpus action with prejudice. On appeal, Plaintiff asserts the same arguments that he did to the district court, specifically: 1) that his counsel denied him the opportunity to appeal his original conviction in state court, 2) ineffective assistance of counsel in that his counsel did not object to the composition of the jury, 3) unconstitutional selection of the jury panel, and 4) that he was denied his right to direct appeal. We have reviewed the briefs of both parties, the magistrate judge's recommendation, and the Order by the district court, and we affirm for substantially the same reason given by the magistrate judge.

AFFIRMED.

1

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 the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 F.3d 1057, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 23047, 1994 WL 232276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holman-v-mondragon-ca10-1994.