United States v. Charles Edwin Nottingham
Docket: 96-5048
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; June 18, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
Charles Edwin Nottingham appeals the denial of his amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as well as the denial of his motion for discovery, his request to amend his § 2255 motion further, and the failure of the district court to hold a hearing on his claims. The Tenth Circuit reviewed the case without oral argument, concluding that the district court's rulings were appropriate. The appeals court determined that Nottingham's habeas claims were barred—either previously addressed in his direct appeal (United States v. Johnson) or not raised during that appeal. The court found no merit in Nottingham's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that he did not demonstrate the necessary cause, prejudice, or fundamental miscarriage of justice to allow appellate review of these claims. Regarding the district court's denial of his requests for counsel, discovery, and a hearing, the Tenth Circuit ruled that there was no abuse of discretion, as the substantive claims were rightly dismissed. Nottingham's proposed amendments to his § 2255 motion were also deemed futile, as they would have been barred, leading to the conclusion that ample opportunity had been provided for developing his claims. The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is affirmed, with the mandate issued immediately. The ruling is not considered binding precedent except under specific legal doctrines.