United States v. Jones

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PAUL DWAYNE JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 20-8014
(D.C. Nos. 1:19-CV-00018-SWS &
1:17-CR-00162-SWS-1)
(D. Wyo.)
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
*

_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 in the District of Utah alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court
denied the motion to vacate, finding “no merit in Defendant’s claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel.” Because the record “conclusively show[ed] Defendant is not
entitled to relief,” the district court also denied an evidentiary hearing. Finally, because no
reasonable jurist could disagree with the district court’s resolution of Defendant’s
constitutional claim, the court denied Defendant a certificate of appealability. Now,
Defendant requests a certificate of appealability from this Court. Exercising jurisdiction

*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

August 11, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-8014 Document: 010110389600 Date Filed: 08/11/2020 Page: 1

2

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), we deny Defendant a certificate of appealability and dismiss
this appeal.
Where the district court rejects a defendant’s constitutional claims on the merits, we
will grant a certificate of appealability if the defendant makes a “substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 483 (2000). To do so, the defendant must show “that reasonable jurists would
find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack,
529 U.S. at 484.
Here, after carefully reviewing Defendant’s request for a certificate of appealability,
the district court’s order denying the motion to vacate, and the record on appeal, we
conclude no reasonable jurist would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claim debatable or wrong. Defendant points to no specific error by the
district court. Rather, he reiterates the claims he made below. First, he argues counsel’s
“failure to prevail on [the] suppression motion,” and “failure to pursue a Frank’s Hearing”
amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. Next, Defendant argues defense counsel
was ineffective because she “fail[ed] to investigate and adequately advi[s]e him about a
‘warrantless search’ of his safe deposit box . . . before advising that he enter into a plea
agreement.” Finally, Defendant argues counsel was ineffective because she advised him
to enter into a plea agreement before disclosing “exculpatory evidence” or completing a
“proper investigation.”
The district court thoroughly addressed each of these allegations before it denied
Defendant’s motion to vacate. Upon our independent review, we find no reversible error
Appellate Case: 20-8014 Document: 010110389600 Date Filed: 08/11/2020 Page: 2

3

in the district court’s factual findings or legal conclusions. As a final matter, Defendant
argues that the district court erred by denying him an evidentiary hearing. In its order
denying the motion to vacate, however, the district court noted, “the existing record
conclusively shows Defendant is not entitled to relief,” and thus, “no evidentiary hearing
is warranted.” We discern no error in the court’s analysis. Because the record conclusively
shows Defendant is not entitled to relief, he is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See
United States v. Marr, 856 F.2d 1471, 1472 (10th Cir. 1988) (holding no evidentiary
hearing is required “where the district court finds the case record conclusively shows the
prisoner is entitled to no relief.”).
Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s order,
we hold that no reasonable jurist would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claim debatable or wrong. We thus DENY Defendant’s request for a
certificate of appealability and DISMISS this appeal.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-8014 Document: 010110389600 Date Filed: 08/11/2020 Page: 3