0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
7 Ansichten3 Seiten
Jack Dowell was convicted in 2003 of federal charges related to destroying government property and interfering with the IRS. After unsuccessfully challenging his conviction and having his Section 2255 motion denied, Dowell filed a Rule 60(b)(4) motion claiming defects in his Section 2255 proceedings. The district court denied the motion. Dowell now seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial, arguing the district court should have reappointed him counsel and held an evidentiary hearing. However, the Tenth Circuit denies the request for a certificate of appealability, finding Dowell makes the same arguments that were already considered and denied in a prior request. As Dowell provides no new reasons to revisit the prior decision, his request is denied
Jack Dowell was convicted in 2003 of federal charges related to destroying government property and interfering with the IRS. After unsuccessfully challenging his conviction and having his Section 2255 motion denied, Dowell filed a Rule 60(b)(4) motion claiming defects in his Section 2255 proceedings. The district court denied the motion. Dowell now seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial, arguing the district court should have reappointed him counsel and held an evidentiary hearing. However, the Tenth Circuit denies the request for a certificate of appealability, finding Dowell makes the same arguments that were already considered and denied in a prior request. As Dowell provides no new reasons to revisit the prior decision, his request is denied
Copyright:
Public Domain
Verfügbare Formate
Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
Jack Dowell was convicted in 2003 of federal charges related to destroying government property and interfering with the IRS. After unsuccessfully challenging his conviction and having his Section 2255 motion denied, Dowell filed a Rule 60(b)(4) motion claiming defects in his Section 2255 proceedings. The district court denied the motion. Dowell now seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial, arguing the district court should have reappointed him counsel and held an evidentiary hearing. However, the Tenth Circuit denies the request for a certificate of appealability, finding Dowell makes the same arguments that were already considered and denied in a prior request. As Dowell provides no new reasons to revisit the prior decision, his request is denied
Copyright:
Public Domain
Verfügbare Formate
Als PDF herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Mr Jack Dowell was convicted in 2003 on federal charges of destroying
government property by fire and forcibly interfering with the Internal Revenue Service. After unsuccessfully challenging the conviction on direct appeal and in a motion to vacate the sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, Mr. Dowell moved to reopen the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), claiming a defect in the 2255 proceedings. The district court denied the motion, and our court declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Here Mr. Dowell repeats the same arguments in again requesting a certificate of appealability. We again decline to issue the certificate.
Mr. Dowells Prior Request
The 2255 motion involved sixteen claims. 1 The federal district court appointed counsel, then denied relief. In the ruling, however, the district court did not rule on some of the claims. Mr. Dowell invoked Rule 60(b)(4), asking for a ruling on the remaining claims and return to his original standing with counsel. The district court denied relief on each claim, but declined to reappoint counsel for Mr. Dowell. He sought a certificate of appealability, arguing in part that the district court should have reappointed counsel and provided an opportunity to testify. This court denied Mr. Dowells request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. Order Denying Certificate of Appealability, United States v. Dowell, No. 13-1357, 2014 WL 1363970 (10th Cir. Apr. 8, 2014) (unpublished). Mr. Dowells New Request Mr. Dowell again seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district courts failure to reappoint counsel and reconvene the evidentiary hearing. We deny the request for a certificate of appealability. In the prior request for a certificate, Mr. Dowell made virtually identical arguments. Our court considered these arguments and denied the request. In his new application, Mr. Dowell has not provided any reason for us to revisit our prior
Mr. Dowell stated there were fifteen claims, but there were actually sixteen. 2
decision. Accordingly, we deny the request for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. In Forma Pauperis Mr. Dowell seeks not only a certificate of appealability, but also leave to proceed in forma pauperis. With dismissal of the appeal, Mr. Dowell is relieved of the duty to pay the filing fee. Thus, we dismiss his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground of mootness. Johnson v. Keith, 726 F.3d 1134, 1136 (10th Cir. 2013) (denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground of mootness upon denial of a certificate of appealability).
United States v. Stanley B. Hoss, JR., Robert W. Duggan, District Attorney of Allegheny County, Representing The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 426 F.2d 291, 3rd Cir. (1970)
Bobby Ray Wilson v. Winston-Salem Police Department D.J. Seamon, Officer George L. Sweat, Chief Francis Storey, Clerk of Court Tom Keith, District Attorney Edwin Shellhouse, Bobby Ray Wilson v. Forsyth County Jail Forsyth County Detention Center Ron Barker Michael Schweitzer Garland Wallace Correctional Medical Services, Bobby Ray Wilson v. Pamela Taylor R.L. Barren, Detective, Winston-Salem Police Department S.G. Honaker, 59 F.3d 168, 4th Cir. (1995)