United States v. Couchman ( 2013 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
July 15, 2013
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 13-6097
(D.C. Nos. 5:13-CV-00303-HE &
v.
5:08-CR-00073-HE-1)
(W.D. Okla.)
CHARLES DEAN COUCHMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY
Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
This matter is before the court on Charles Couchman’s pro se requests for a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) and to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). Couchman seeks a COA so he can appeal the district court’s denial of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Because Couchman has
not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” id.
§ 2253(c)(2), this court denies his request for a COA and dismisses this appeal.
Additionally, as Couchman has failed to present a “reasoned, nonfrivolous
argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal,” we deny
his request to proceed IFP. Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1177 (10th Cir.
1999).
Couchman pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and
ammunition. Because of his extensive criminal history, Couchman was sentenced
as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4.
On direct appeal, this court concluded Couchman’s 192-month sentence was both
procedurally and substantively reasonable and consistent with the Eighth
Amendment. United States v. Couchman, 329 F. App’x 836, 837-39 (10th Cir.
2009). In the instant § 2255 motion, Couchman asserted (1) his appellate counsel
was ineffective for failing to argue his convictions violated the Second
Amendment; (2) his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment; and (3) the
application to him of a law not in effect at the time of his birth violates the Ex
Post Facto Clause. The district court summarily rejected each claim, noting as
follows: (1) District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-27 (2008), makes
clear the Second Amendment is not violated by a prohibition on a convicted felon
possessing a firearm; (2) this court rejected an Eight Amendment challenge to
Couchman’s sentence on direct appeal, Couchman, 329 F. App’x at 839; and
(3) the Ex Post Facto Clause does not lock into place the legal regime in existence
at the time of a particular defendant’s birth, but instead prevents the government
from retroactively criminalizing conduct that was legal at the time undertaken.
-2-
The granting of a COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to Couchman’s
appeal from the denial of his § 2255 motion. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336 (2003). To be entitled to a COA, he must make “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make the requisite
showing, he must demonstrate “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for
that matter, agree that) the [motion] should have been resolved in a different
manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336 (quotations omitted). In evaluating
whether Couchman has satisfied his burden, this court undertakes “a preliminary,
though not definitive, consideration of the [legal] framework” applicable to each
of his claims. Id. at 338. Although he need not demonstrate his appeal will
succeed to be entitled to a COA, he must “prove something more than the absence
of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith.” Id.
Having undertaken a review of Couchman’s appellate filings, the district
court’s order, and the entire record before this court pursuant to the framework
set out by the Supreme Court in Miller-El, we conclude Couchman is not entitled
to a COA. The district court’s resolution of Couchman’s § 2255 motion is not
reasonably subject to debate and the issues he seeks to raise on appeal are not
adequate to deserve further proceedings. Instead, the arguments set out in
Couchman’s brief on appeal are either frivolous or foreclosed by this court’s
decision on direct appeal. Accordingly, this court DENIES Couchman’s request
-3-
for a COA and DISMISSES this appeal. Furthermore, given that we have denied
his motion to proceed on appeal IFP, we remind Couchman that he is obligated to
pay the full amount of the filing fee.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-