United States v. Clayton

46 F. App'x 954
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 26, 2002
Docket01-7093
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 46 F. App'x 954 (United States v. Clayton) 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
United States v. Clayton, 46 F. App'x 954 (10th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

*955 ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument.

Appellant’s Apprendi claims are barred under United States v. Mora, 293 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir.2002) and procedural bar. Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims were properly denied because of procedural bar, failure to show either actual conflict of interest or prejudice, and because the claims are conclusory and not supported in the record.

We have examined all of the claims raised by Appellant on appeal and find that none of them have merit.

Accordingly, the district court order denying petitioner’s petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is AFFIRMED.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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.

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

Related

United States v. Clayton
659 F. App'x 963 (Tenth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 F. App'x 954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-clayton-ca10-2002.