United States v. Springer, No. 14-5109 (10th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT February 25, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LINDSEY KENT SPRINGER, No. 14-5109 (D.C. Nos. 4:13-CV-00145-SPF-TLW and 4:09-CR-00043-SPF-1) (N.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY* Before HARTZ, McKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. Appellant seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition. In 2010, Appellant was convicted on several tax evasion charges and sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. We affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal. United States v. Springer, 444 F. App’x 256 (10th Cir. 2011). Appellant then filed the instant § 2255 petition, in which he raised seventy-six grounds for relief. The district court dismissed the majority of these grounds as procedurally barred, then concluded that * This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. each of the remaining grounds failed on the merits. We have thoroughly reviewed the appellate record and Appellant’s filings on appeal, as well as the applicable legal standards. Having done so, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the district court’s comprehensive orders disposing of this case. We accordingly DENY Appellant’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. We DENY Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. All other pending motions are likewise DENIED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
