Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Lewis L. Sistrunk, 111 F.3d 91, 10th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views1 page
    Lewis Sistrunk appealed the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reviewed Sistrunk's briefs and the record and determined, for the same reasons given by the district court, that Sistrunk failed to raise any issues that were debatable among jurists or that could be resolved differently, or that deserved further proceedings. As a result, the court denied Sistrunk's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-04-24 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 111 F.3d 91 Docket: 96-3418

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Lewis Sistrunk appealed the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reviewed Sistrunk's briefs and the record and determined, for the same reasons given by the district court, that Sistrunk failed to raise any issues that were debatable among jurists or that could be resolved differently, or that deserved further proceedings. As a result, the court denied Sistrunk's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views1 page

    United States v. Lewis L. Sistrunk, 111 F.3d 91, 10th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Lewis Sistrunk appealed the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reviewed Sistrunk's briefs and the record and determined, for the same reasons given by the district court, that Sistrunk failed to raise any issues that were debatable among jurists or that could be resolved differently, or that deserved further proceedings. As a result, the court denied Sistrunk's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    111 F.

    3d 91
    97 CJ C.A.R. 621

    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,


    v.
    Lewis L. SISTRUNK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 96-3418.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Tenth Circuit.
    April 24, 1997.

    Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, and PORFILIO and MURPHY, Circuit


    Judges.
    ORDER
    JOHN C. PORFILIO, Circuit Judge.

    Contending he was denied effective assistance of counsel, Lewis Sistrunk


    attempts to appeal the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The case is
    pending before us upon an application for a certificate of appealability. See 28
    U.S.C. 2253(c). After review of his briefs and the record, we conclude,
    substantially for the reasons set forth by the district court in denying the relief
    requested, Mr. Sistrunk has failed to raise issues that are debatable among
    jurists, or that a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the questions
    deserve further proceedings. The certificate of appealability is DENIED and
    the appeal is DISMISSED. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Lennox v. Evans, 87 F.3d
    431 (10th Cir.1996). The mandate shall issue forthwith.

    You might also like