United States v. Jenkins, No. 15-6097 (10th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT August 21, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN DEWAYNE JENKINS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 15-6097 (W.D. Oklahoma) (D.C. Nos. 5:14-CV-01087-HE and 5:12-CR-00118-HE-1) ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Before, HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. Defendant Steven Jenkins seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (requiring COA to appeal denial of motion under § 2255). He is entitled to a COA only if he “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). In district court Defendant raised four grounds for relief: ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the investigation of this case, a conflict of interest of his trial counsel, ineffective assistance of trial counsel at sentencing, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise the three prior claims of ineffective trial counsel. He later added an additional claim in anticipation of a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). In this court Defendant raises only his claim based on Johnson. But Johnson is irrelevant to his prosecution and sentence. Johnson held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague. See Johnson 135 S. Ct. at 2563. True, Defendant was sentenced under the ACCA. But the sentence imposed on Defendant was not based on the voided residual clause. Rather, his ACCA enhancement was under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A). See United States v. Jenkins, 535 F. App’x 720, 721 (10th Cir. 2013) (sentence enhancement based on prior convictions for various drug offenses). It is obvious that Johnson can provide no relief to Defendant. We DENY his request for a COA and dismiss the appeal. We GRANT his request to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.
