United States v. Molina ( 1998 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
AUG 7 1998
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 97-7138
v. E.D. Oklahoma
RAMON MEDINA MOLINA, (D.C. No. 97-CV-272-S)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 (a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This cause is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
This matter is before us on the application of Ramon Medina Molina for a
Certificate of Appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 with respect to the
district court’s denial of Mr. Molina’s action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Mr. Molina was convicted in federal district court of drug conspiracy,
interstate travel to promote racketeering, conspiracy, interstate travel with the
intent to commit murder, and killing an individual in furtherance of a continuing
criminal enterprise. He was sentenced to three consecutive life imprisonment
terms and two concurrent terms of five years each. We affirmed those
convictions on direct appeal. See United States v. Molina, 75 F.3d 600 (10th
Cir.), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1249 (1996). Our review on direct appeal not only
included numerous issues raised by Mr. Molina directly, but also issues advanced
by his codefendants, which Mr. Molina adopted. We found all of the issues to be
without merit, referring specifically to our opinion in United States v. McCullah,
76 F.3d 1087 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1699 (1997).
In his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Mr. Molina reasserts some
issues which we refused on direct appeal and asserts others which are
procedurally barred. Mr. Molina then proceeds to assert that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel because of the foregoing and other errors, many
of which are made essentially in the form of bare conclusions.
-2-
We have reviewed all of Mr. Molina’s allegations, as well as the entire file,
and conclude that the district court did not err in denying relief for the reasons
stated in the district court’s order dated November 13, 1997. As to the ineffective
assistance of counsel claim, we are satisfied that there is no reasonable
probability that the results of the proceedings would be different and that no
argument presented rises to the level of the required substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Accordingly, we deny
Mr. Molina’s application for a certificate of appealability, and the appeal is
DISMISSED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-3-