Appellate Case: 24-3116 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 2, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 24-3116 (D.C. Nos. 6:23-CV-01273-JWB & NICHOLAS WOODFIELD, 6:21-CR-10102-JWB-1) (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * _________________________________
Before MATHESON, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Nicholas Woodfield, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(requiring a COA to appeal an order denying a § 2255 motion). Exercising jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), we deny a COA and dismiss this matter. 1
* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 Because Mr. Woodfield appears pro se, “we liberally construe his filings, but we will not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). Appellate Case: 24-3116 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 2
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Woodfield pled guilty to distribution of child pornography under 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252A(a)(2). In the plea agreement, he admitted that (1) he recorded his internet
communications; (2) the recording showed that he scrolled through an online storage
account, which showed images of child pornography; and (3) he “distribute[d] child
pornography to another via the internet.” ROA, Vol. I at 26. At the plea hearing, he
admitted under oath that the factual statement in his plea agreement was true.
Id. at 196-97. The district court sentenced him to 168 months in prison. Mr. Woodfield
did not file a direct appeal.
Mr. Woodfield filed a § 2255 motion, asserting that he sent only a link to a cloud
storage folder and did not transmit child pornography. He argued his counsel was
ineffective for failing to advise him that his conduct was not distribution of child
pornography. The district court rejected this argument, concluding that the facts in the
plea agreement established distribution of child pornography without a “believable
reason” to find otherwise. Id. at 151 (quoting United States v. Green, 66 F. App’x 808,
810 (10th Cir. 2003) (unpublished) (quoting United States v. Bambulas, 571 F.3d 525,
526 (10th Cir. 1978)). The court said that Mr. Woodfield did not address the statements
in the plea agreement nor provide evidence to support his link-only assertion. In addition
to denying the § 2255 motion, the district court denied a COA and entered judgment.
Mr. Woodfield filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching portions of an expert
report to support that he sent only links to images and did not screen-share child
pornography images with another. The district court rejected this argument, stating the
2 Appellate Case: 24-3116 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 3
report did not foreclose that screen recordings showed that Mr. Woodfield shared child
pornography images. It said that the report “does not affirmatively indicate that
Defendant did not share images on the screen recordings.” ROA, Vol. I at 237. The
court also said messages on Mr. Woodfield’s phone support that he was sharing images
during internet chats. Further, the court said, Mr. Woodfield admitted at the plea hearing
that his phone contained a recording of a conversation during which he scrolled through
child pornography images. The court denied the motion for reconsideration.
Mr. Woodfield filed a notice of appeal.
The timing and content of Mr. Woodfield’s notice limits this appeal to the district
court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration. 2
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Background
COA Requirement and Standard of Review
To obtain a COA, Mr. Woodfield must make a “substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), by demonstrating “that reasonable
jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different
manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotations omitted). When
2 Because Mr. Woodfield filed his motion for reconsideration more than 28 days after entry of judgment, and because his notice of appeal designates only the district court’s order denying that motion, this appeal just concerns that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) and 4(a)(4).
3 Appellate Case: 24-3116 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 4
assessing the district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion, “we review the district court’s
findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” United States v.
Rushin, 642 F.3d 1299, 1302 (10th Cir. 2011).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) under the Sixth
Amendment, a defendant must show (1) counsel’s constitutionally deficient performance
(2) prejudiced the defendant. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We
“may address [these requirements] in either order and need not address both if the
defendant has failed to satisfy one.” Frederick v. Quick, 79 F.4th 1090, 1105
(10th Cir. 2023) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697).
B. Analysis
In his brief to this court, Mr. Woodfield argues his counsel was ineffective for
“failure to advise him that the transfer of a web ‘link’ does not satisfy the statutory
definition” for distribution of child pornography. Aplt. Br. at 2. But, as the district court
repeatedly noted, Mr. Woodfield admitted in his plea agreement that he did more than
share a web link. He confirmed under oath that the recording of his internet
communication showed that he shared child pornography images when he scrolled
through them. His IAC claim lacks a factual predicate.
Mr. Woodfield also contends the district court erred “in concluding that” he
admitted to “distribut[ing] child pornography because the ‘link’ led to a site that
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Appellate Case: 24-3116 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 2, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 24-3116 (D.C. Nos. 6:23-CV-01273-JWB & NICHOLAS WOODFIELD, 6:21-CR-10102-JWB-1) (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * _________________________________
Before MATHESON, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Nicholas Woodfield, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(requiring a COA to appeal an order denying a § 2255 motion). Exercising jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), we deny a COA and dismiss this matter. 1
* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 Because Mr. Woodfield appears pro se, “we liberally construe his filings, but we will not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). Appellate Case: 24-3116 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 2
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Woodfield pled guilty to distribution of child pornography under 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252A(a)(2). In the plea agreement, he admitted that (1) he recorded his internet
communications; (2) the recording showed that he scrolled through an online storage
account, which showed images of child pornography; and (3) he “distribute[d] child
pornography to another via the internet.” ROA, Vol. I at 26. At the plea hearing, he
admitted under oath that the factual statement in his plea agreement was true.
Id. at 196-97. The district court sentenced him to 168 months in prison. Mr. Woodfield
did not file a direct appeal.
Mr. Woodfield filed a § 2255 motion, asserting that he sent only a link to a cloud
storage folder and did not transmit child pornography. He argued his counsel was
ineffective for failing to advise him that his conduct was not distribution of child
pornography. The district court rejected this argument, concluding that the facts in the
plea agreement established distribution of child pornography without a “believable
reason” to find otherwise. Id. at 151 (quoting United States v. Green, 66 F. App’x 808,
810 (10th Cir. 2003) (unpublished) (quoting United States v. Bambulas, 571 F.3d 525,
526 (10th Cir. 1978)). The court said that Mr. Woodfield did not address the statements
in the plea agreement nor provide evidence to support his link-only assertion. In addition
to denying the § 2255 motion, the district court denied a COA and entered judgment.
Mr. Woodfield filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching portions of an expert
report to support that he sent only links to images and did not screen-share child
pornography images with another. The district court rejected this argument, stating the
2 Appellate Case: 24-3116 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 3
report did not foreclose that screen recordings showed that Mr. Woodfield shared child
pornography images. It said that the report “does not affirmatively indicate that
Defendant did not share images on the screen recordings.” ROA, Vol. I at 237. The
court also said messages on Mr. Woodfield’s phone support that he was sharing images
during internet chats. Further, the court said, Mr. Woodfield admitted at the plea hearing
that his phone contained a recording of a conversation during which he scrolled through
child pornography images. The court denied the motion for reconsideration.
Mr. Woodfield filed a notice of appeal.
The timing and content of Mr. Woodfield’s notice limits this appeal to the district
court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration. 2
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Background
COA Requirement and Standard of Review
To obtain a COA, Mr. Woodfield must make a “substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), by demonstrating “that reasonable
jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different
manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed
further,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotations omitted). When
2 Because Mr. Woodfield filed his motion for reconsideration more than 28 days after entry of judgment, and because his notice of appeal designates only the district court’s order denying that motion, this appeal just concerns that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) and 4(a)(4).
3 Appellate Case: 24-3116 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 4
assessing the district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion, “we review the district court’s
findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” United States v.
Rushin, 642 F.3d 1299, 1302 (10th Cir. 2011).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) under the Sixth
Amendment, a defendant must show (1) counsel’s constitutionally deficient performance
(2) prejudiced the defendant. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We
“may address [these requirements] in either order and need not address both if the
defendant has failed to satisfy one.” Frederick v. Quick, 79 F.4th 1090, 1105
(10th Cir. 2023) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697).
B. Analysis
In his brief to this court, Mr. Woodfield argues his counsel was ineffective for
“failure to advise him that the transfer of a web ‘link’ does not satisfy the statutory
definition” for distribution of child pornography. Aplt. Br. at 2. But, as the district court
repeatedly noted, Mr. Woodfield admitted in his plea agreement that he did more than
share a web link. He confirmed under oath that the recording of his internet
communication showed that he shared child pornography images when he scrolled
through them. His IAC claim lacks a factual predicate.
Mr. Woodfield also contends the district court erred “in concluding that” he
admitted to “distribut[ing] child pornography because the ‘link’ led to a site that
contained true images of such content.” Id. at 3. But the district court made no such
error. It instead concluded that he admitted to child pornography distribution because he
4 Appellate Case: 24-3116 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 5
said in his plea agreement that the recording of his internet communication showed that
he scrolled through images. 3
This court has said, in reference to a defendant’s statements at a change of plea
hearing, that “[t]he truth and accuracy of [defendant's] statements are regarded as
conclusive in the absence of a believable reason justifying departure from their apparent
truth.” United States v. Bambulas, 571 F.2d 525, 526 (10th Cir.1978); United States v.
Drayton, 541 F. App’x 858, 860 (10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (cited for persuasive
value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1). As in the district court,
Mr. Woodfield does not support his argument that he communicated only a link to child
pornography.
Based on the foregoing, reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s
denial of Mr. Woodfield’s motion for reconsideration.
3 Unlike his motion for reconsideration in district court, Mr. Woodfield does not discuss an expert report to support his argument here. Under Fed. R. App. P. 28 and 10th Cir. R. 28.3(B), he may not incorporate by reference his district court arguments here. See Rocky Mountain Wild v. Dallas, 98 F.4th 1263, 1303 n.20 (10th Cir. 2024); see also Requena v. Roberts, 893 F.3d 1195, 1205 (10th Cir. 2018) (pro se litigants “must comply with the same rules of procedure as other litigants.”). Further, he does not challenge the district court’s analysis of the report in its order rejecting his motion for reconsideration, so he has waived any such challenge here.
5 Appellate Case: 24-3116 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 12/02/2024 Page: 6
III. CONCLUSION
We deny a COA and dismiss this matter.
Entered for the Court
Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge