Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    United States v. Lach, 10th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a federal prisoner's petition for habeas relief. The prisoner pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. He filed a § 2255 motion challenging his sentence under Blakely v. Washington, which the district court denied. The appellate court denies the prisoner's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that the issues raised do not meet the standard for granting a certificate, for the same reasons given by the district court in earlier orders. The appeal is dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Lach, 10th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    The document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a federal prisoner's petition for habeas relief. The prisoner pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. He filed a § 2255 motion challenging his sentence under Blakely v. Washington, which the district court denied. The appellate court denies the prisoner's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that the issues raised do not meet the standard for granting a certificate, for the same reasons given by the district court in earlier orders. The appeal is dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-03-21 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 05-4223

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a federal prisoner's petition for habeas relief. The prisoner pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. He filed a § 2255 motion challenging his sentence under Blakely v. Washington, which the district court denied. The appellate court denies the prisoner's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that the issues raised do not meet the standard for granting a certificate, for the same reasons given by the district court in earlier orders. The appeal is dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    7 views3 pages

    United States v. Lach, 10th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a federal prisoner's petition for habeas relief. The prisoner pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. He filed a § 2255 motion challenging his sentence under Blakely v. Washington, which the district court denied. The appellate court denies the prisoner's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that the issues raised do not meet the standard for granting a certificate, for the same reasons given by the district court in earlier orders. The appeal is dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    TENTH CIRCUIT

    March 21, 2006


    Elisabeth A. Shumaker

    Clerk of Court

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.

    No. 05-4223
    (D.C. Nos. 2:05-CV-202-DAK and
    2:04-CR-194-DAK)

    DAVID L. LACH,

    (D. Utah)

    Defendant-Appellant.
    ORDER
    Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

    Petitioner, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, seeks habeas relief pursuant
    to 28 U.S.C. 2255. Petitioner pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to
    thirty months in prison and thirty-six months of supervised release. In March of
    2005, Petitioner filed a 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, challenging his
    sentence under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Petitioner also
    argued that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to raise the Blakely issue
    even though Blakely was decided before sentencing.
    The district court denied Petitioners 2255 motion and also his Federal
    Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. Order (D. Utah
    Aug. 5, 2005); Memorandum Decision and Order (D. Utah Apr. 28, 2005). The

    district court analyzed Petitioners Blakely challenge under United States v.


    Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Memorandum Decision and Order, 3. The district
    court denied Petitioners challenge because Booker does not apply retroactively to
    cases on collateral review. Id.; see also Bey v. United States, 399 F.3d 1266,
    1269 (10th Cir. 2005).
    The issues Petitioner raises in this appeal are identical to those he brought
    before the district court. To grant a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must
    make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C.
    2253(c)(2) (1994). To meet this burden, Petitioner must demonstrate that
    reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) 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) (quotation omitted).
    We have carefully reviewed Petitioners brief, the district courts
    disposition, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal,
    or Petitioners filing raises an issue which meets our standard for the grant of a
    certificate of appealability. For substantially the same reasons set forth by the
    district court in its orders of April 28, 2005, and August 5, 2005, we cannot say
    that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
    petition should have been resolved in a different manner. Id.
    -2-

    We DENY Petitioners request for a certificate of appealability and


    DISMISS the appeal.
    Entered for the Court

    Monroe G. McKay
    Circuit Judge

    -3-

    You might also like