U.S. v. Sistrunk, 96-3418
| Decision Date | 24 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-3418,96-3418 |
| Citation | 111 F.3d 91 |
| Parties | 97 CJ C.A.R. 621 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lewis L. SISTRUNK, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, and PORFILIO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Brown, Criminal Action No. 94-10064-01.
...that are debatable among jurists, or that a court could resolve differently, or that deserve further proceedings. United States v. Sistrunk, 111 F.3d 91, 91 (10th Cir.1997). Accordingly, the certificate of appealability is IT IS BY THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion to vaca......
-
McCracken v. Gibson, 00-5127
...issue[] differently, or that the question[] deserve[s] further proceedings.'" English, 241 F.3d at 1281 (quoting United States v. Sistrunk, 111 F.3d 91, 91 (10th Cir. 1997)). Because we have repeatedly rejected similar arguments asserted by other Oklahoma state prisoners, e.g. Sherrill, 184......
-
English v. Cody, 00-5115
...jurists, or that a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the questions deserve further proceedings." United States v. Sistrunk, 111 F.3d 91, 91 (10th Cir. 1997). In our previous decision in this case, we vacated the district court's interlocutory decision refusing to apply a p......