Appellate Case: 21-1396 Document: 010110726457 Date Filed: 08/18/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 18, 2022 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 21-1396 (D.C. Nos. 1:21-CV-00773-RM & CARLOS FERNANDEZ-BARRON, 1:15-CR-00360-RM-5) (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY* _________________________________ Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Carlos Fernandez-Barron (“Mr. Barron”)1 seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. * This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 We will refer to the appellant as “Mr. Barron” because at trial, he agreed to being addressed as Mr. Barron. Appellate Case: 21-1396 Document: 010110726457 Date Filed: 08/18/2022 Page: 2 I. Background Mr. Barron was convicted in federal district court on two counts of conspiracy, distribution, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.2 He was acquitted of two other counts of possession and distribution. Based on a finding that Mr. Barron committed perjury when testifying at trial, the district court imposed a two-level sentencing adjustment for obstruction of justice. On direct appeal, Mr. Barron challenged the adjustment, but we affirmed. See United States v. Fernandez-Barron, 950 F.3d 655, 657 (10th Cir. 2019). Mr. Barron then filed his § 2255 motion. The district court denied that motion and a COA. II. COA Standard and Scope of COA Request Before he may appeal, Mr. Barron must obtain a COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). To do so, he must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” § 2253(c)(2), such that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In his § 2255 motion, Mr. Barron raised four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and a claim of cumulative error. The district court denied all five claims. We view Mr. Barron’s COA application and supporting brief he filed in this court (“COA 2 The convictions involved (1) Count One, conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine and (2) Count Four, distribution and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II), and 846. 2 Appellate Case: 21-1396 Document: 010110726457 Date Filed: 08/18/2022 Page: 3 Application”) as seeking a COA only as to the district court’s denial of relief on claim two of his § 2255 motion—that trial counsel was …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals