United States v. Kirtman , 33 F. App'x 401 ( 2002 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 7 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-5083
(D.C. Nos. 00-CV-860-C,
DERRICK EUGENE KIRTMAN, 97-CR-53-C)
(N.D. Oklahoma)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY , McKAY , and BALDOCK , 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner seeks an order of this court granting his application for a
certificate of appealability (COA) in order for this court to review the denial of his
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
motion to vacate his sentence brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In order to obtain
a COA, petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the district court
rejected petitioner’s constitutional claims on the merits, “petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of
the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000).
Petitioner was convicted, following a jury trial, of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack cocaine) and conspiracy to distribute
cocaine base and was sentenced to life imprisonment. United States v. Kirtman ,
No. 98-5039, 1999 WL 49126 (10th Cir. Feb. 4, 1999). His conviction and
sentence were affirmed on appeal. Id. at **4. Following the Supreme Court’s
denial of certiorari, petitioner filed this motion to vacate his sentence, alleging
that his trial counsel was ineffective in several aspects and that his sentence
violated the rule set forth in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
The district court considered the allegations that petitioner’s trial counsel
was ineffective and found them lacking in factual basis, factually incorrect as
shown by the trial and sentencing transcripts, or legally insufficient to establish a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington , 466
U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (petitioner must show that counsel’s performance fell below
objective standard of reasonableness and that his defense was prejudiced). The
-2-
court made specific determinations with regard to each of petitioner’s claims, and
petitioner has failed to point to any errors in the court’s findings.
With respect to petitioner’s Apprendi argument, the record reflects that both
the superceding indictment and the jury instructions specifically charged petitioner
with possession with intent to distribute “50 or more grams of cocaine base
(crack)” in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1). Thus this case is
distinguishable from United States v. Jones , 235 F.3d 1231, 1236 (10th Cir.
2000), wherein we held that “the quantity of drugs involved in a violation of § 841
is an essential element of the offense if that fact exposes the defendant to a
heightened maximum sentence under § 841(b)(1)(A) or (B).” Here, “the
benchmark quantity of cocaine . . . [was] alleged in the indictment in addition to
being submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
Because we concur for substantially the reasons set forth in the district
court’s order of March 13, 2001, we DENY petitioner’s application for a COA,
GRANT his motion for in forma pauperis status and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-