United States v. Denetclaw

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
KENNEDY DENETCLAW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 98-2152
v. (D.C. No. CIV-98-75)
(Dist. New Mex.)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BRORBY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9.
Kennedy Denetclaw was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon,
assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and maiming. The conviction was
affirmed. See United States v. Denetclaw, 96 F.3d 454 (10th Cir. 1996). Relying
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
on a separate concurrence in our opinion in Denetclaw, Mr. Denetclaw contends
in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that his Sixth Amendment right to effective
assistance of counsel was violated when his attorney in the criminal action did not
properly object to the admission of his tribal court guilty plea, which was used to
impeach his credibility. The district court held that Mr. Denetclaw’s Sixth
Amendment rights were not violated, granted a Certificate of Appealability, and
denied Mr. Denetclaw’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. We grant
ifp status and affirm.
Mr. Denetclaw’s section 2255 petition was referred to a magistrate judge
who wrote a careful analysis explaining why Mr. Denetclaw’s right to effective
assistance of counsel was not violated under the standards set out in Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The district court adopted that analysis.
Because we agree substantially with the magistrate judge’s Recommended
Disposition, we hold that Mr. Denetclaw received effective assistance of counsel
in his criminal trial and appeal.
The judgment of the district court denying Mr. Denetclaw’s section 2255
petition is AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour
Chief Judge
-2-