UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
KAMRAN JEAN ROSS,
(D.C. No. CIV-97-1364-A)
(W. Dist. Okla.)
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.
Kamran Jean Ross filed an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming that his
counsel in his criminal case provided him with ineffective assistance at trial.
After an evidentiary hearing, the district court determined that Mr. Ross' Sixth
Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel had not been violated. Mr.
In the proceedings below, the district court appointed new counsel for Mr.
Ross and held an evidentiary hearing at which both Mr. Ross and his former
counsel, Don Gutteridge, testified. In its written order, the district court noted
that the testimony of Mr. Ross and Mr. Gutteridge conflicted diametrically on
critical points. The court specifically found Mr. Ross' testimony not credible.
On appeal, Mr. Ross asks us to second guess the district court's credibility
findings. This we are not prepared to do. See, e.g., United States v.
Gama-Bastidas, 142 F.3d 1233, 1239-40 (10th Cir. 1998) ("[J]udging the credibility of
the witnesses, determining the weight to be afforded the testimony, and drawing
reasonable inferences and conclusions from the testimony are within the province
of the district court."). The district court thoroughly analyzed Mr. Ross'
ineffective assistance claims in its written order. We are not persuaded the
district court erred in holding that Mr. Ross' Sixth Amendment right to counsel
was not violated.
We grant Mr. Ross' motion for informa pauperis status on appeal, deny his
motion for a certificate of appealability, and DISMISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour
Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.
*.This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or 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 document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Roberto Gama-Bastidas, Defendant-Appellant., 142 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 1998)
- US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - 28 USC 2255 - Sec. 2255. Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence
See other documents that cite the same legislation