United States v. Caraway

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 30, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 10-3296
(D.C. Nos. 5:09-CV-04141-RDR and
THOMAS GUY CARAWAY, 5:06-CR-40138-RDR-1)
(D. Kan.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before LUCERO, GORSUCH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Thomas Caraway was convicted by a jury for using the mail to deliver an
explosive device with intent to kill or injure and for possessing a destructive
device in furtherance of a crime of violence. For these federal crimes, the district
court sentenced him to prison for thirty years. After this court affirmed his
sentence on direct appeal, see United States v. Caraway, 534 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir.
2008), Mr. Caraway brought a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence.
The district court dismissed this motion, concluding that his ineffective assistance
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
of counsel claim lacked merit. Mr. Caraway now seeks from us a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) in order to challenge the district court’s denial of his
motion.
We may issue a COA only if the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Under this standard,
an applicant must show “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.” United States v. Taylor, 454 F.3d 1075, 1078 (10th Cir. 2006) (citation
omitted). Because Mr. Caraway proceeds in this court pro se, we review his
pleadings with special solicitude.
Before us, Mr. Caraway alleges the same twenty instances of ineffective
assistance of counsel that he raised before the district court. In its thorough
opinion, however, the district court applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668 (1984), and rejected each of Mr. Caraway’s arguments. And, after reviewing
the record, we conclude no reasonable jurist could doubt the correctness of the
district court’s disposition of these claims. Accordingly, and for substantially the
-2-
same reasons given by the district court, we deny Mr. Caraway’s application for a
COA and dismiss his appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-3-