United States v. Acey , 537 F. App'x 810 ( 2013 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSNovember 4, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 12-6321
(W.D. Oklahoma)
v.
(D.C. Nos. 5:12-CV-00711-F and
5:10-CR-00153-F-1)
KENYATTA WAYNE ACEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY
Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner, Kenyatta Wayne Acey, seeks to appeal the district court’s
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.
The matter is before this court on Acey’s request for a certificate of appealability
(“COA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (providing no appeal may be taken from a
“final order in a proceeding under section 2255” unless the movant first obtains a
COA). Because Acey has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right,” this court denies his request for a COA and dismisses this
appeal. Id. § 2253(c)(2).
Acey pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute
cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced to
262 months’ imprisonment. Although the written plea agreement contained a
waiver of Acey’s right to directly appeal or collaterally attack his conviction and
sentence, he filed a direct appeal with this court. United States v. Acey, 247 F.
App’x 808 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished disposition). This court enforced the
waiver and dismissed Acey’s appeal. Id. at 810.
Acey filed the instant § 2255 motion on June 22, 2012, asserting he should
have been sentenced pursuant to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. See Dorsey v.
United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321, 2331 (2012). The district court concluded this
claim fell within the scope of a knowing and voluntary waiver. See United States
v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325-27 (10th Cir. 2004). The court further concluded
that enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, the court enforced the waiver as to the Fair Sentencing Act claim.
The district court resolved Acey’s ineffective assistance claim relating to
the negotiation of his plea agreement on the merits after determining that claim
did not fall within the waiver. See United States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179,
1183 (10th Cir. 2001). The court, however, denied relief, concluding Acey’s
nonspecific allegations of ineffective assistance were insufficient to show
deficient performance. The court further concluded Acey failed to show any
prejudice flowing from counsel’s performance.
To be entitled to a COA, Acey must make “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make the requisite
-2-
showing, he 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.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quotations
omitted). In evaluating whether Acey 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 Acey 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 Acey’s application for a COA and appellate
filings, the district court’s order, and the entire record on appeal pursuant to the
framework set out by the Supreme Court in Miller-El, this court concludes he is
not entitled to a COA. The district court’s resolution of Acey’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. Accordingly, this court denies Acey’s
request for a COA and dismisses this appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-