United States v. Lewis L. Sistrunk

Tenth Circuit

United States v. Lewis L. Sistrunk

111 F.3d 91, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 8551, 1997 WL 200031

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedApril 24, 1997

Docket96-3418

StatusPublished

Cited by34 cases

This text of 111 F.3d 91 (United States v. Lewis L. Sistrunk) 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. Lewis L. Sistrunk, 111 F.3d 91, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 8551, 1997 WL 200031 (10th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

JOHN C. PORFILIO, Circuit Judge.

Contending he was denied effective assistance of counsel, Lewis Sistrunk attempts to appeal the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The case is pending before us upon an application for a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). After review of his briefs and the record, we conclude, substantially for the reasons set forth by the district court in denying the relief requested, Mr. Sistrunk has failed to raise issues that are debatable among jurists, or that a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the questions deserve further proceedings. The certificate of appealability is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Lennox v. Evans, 87 F.3d 431 (10th Cir.1996). The mandate shall issue forthwith.

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

ORDER

JOHN C. PORFILIO, Circuit Judge.

Contending he was denied effective assistance of counsel, Lewis Sistrunk attempts to appeal the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The case is pending before us upon an application for a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). After review of his briefs and the record, we conclude, substantially for the reasons set forth by the district court in denying the relief requested, Mr. Sistrunk has failed to raise issues that are debatable among jurists, or that a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the questions deserve further proceedings. The certificate of appealability is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Lennox v. Evans, 87 F.3d 431 (10th Cir.1996). The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 F.3d 91, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 8551, 1997 WL 200031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lewis-l-sistrunk-ca10-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack