United States v. Bullcoming, No. 11-6049 (10th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 7, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 11-6049 (W.D. Oklahoma) ROY DEAN BULLCOMING, (D.C. Nos. 5:10-CV-00606-F and 5:08-CR-00055-F-1) Defendant - Appellant. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. Roy Dean Bullcoming seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (requiring COA to appeal denial of relief under § 2255). A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires a demonstration that . . . includes showing 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. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, an applicant must show that the district court s resolution of the constitutional claim was either debatable or wrong. Id. No reasonable jurist could debate the resolution of Mr. Bullcoming s § 2255 motion in the district court s thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See United States v. Bullcoming, No. CR-08-0055-F, 2011 WL 195652 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 18, 2011). We therefore deny his application for a COA and dismiss the appeal. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Harris L Hartz 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.