United States v. Lemon, 20-6119

Federal grand jury indicted Jeffrey Lemon on 18 counts of theft of mail matter by a USPS employee; magistrate appointed federal public defender William Early.
Lemon moved on the eve of trial to replace counsel and for a continuance; the district court denied those motions after counsel represented he was prepared.
At trial the government presented eyewitness identifications matching Lemon, computer log evidence tying activity to "Clerk 4" (Lemon’s employee number), and a written confession; defense cross-examined many witnesses but presented no defense witnesses; jury convicted on 17 counts.
Lemon was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and supervised release; he appealed and the Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions on direct appeal.
Lemon filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance for failing to call witnesses, introduce certain photos and bank records, and inadequate cross-examination; the district court denied relief and refused a COA.
The Tenth Circuit denied a COA, holding Lemon’s ineffective-assistance allegations were conclusory and unsupported, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate/call witnesses and introduce evidence	Lemon: trial counsel failed to develop and present witness testimony, photos, and bank records that would have undermined the government’s case and shown lack of prejudice	Government/District Court: Lemon’s claims are unsupported, largely speculative, and contradicted by record; counsel cross-examined extensively and had a trial strategy	Denied COA; court held allegations were conclusory and insufficient under Strickland to show deficient performance or prejudice
Denial of evidentiary hearing on § 2255 motion	Lemon: district court should have held an evidentiary hearing to develop affidavits/testimony supporting ineffective-assistance claims	Government/District Court: the motion, files, and record conclusively show no entitlement to relief; Lemon failed to proffer what witnesses would actually say	Denied COA; court held district court did not abuse discretion—Lemon’s proffer was too vague to warrant a hearing

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for COA when district court rejects constitutional claims on the merits)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (COA jurisdictional prerequisites and standards)
Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017) (clarifying COA/merits interplay and jurisdictional limits)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Snow v. Sirmons, 474 F.3d 693 (10th Cir. 2007) (need to show what uncalled witnesses would have testified to for Strickland prejudice)
United States v. Snyder, 787 F.2d 1429 (10th Cir. 1986) (defendant must show what prospective witnesses’ testimony would have been)
United States v. Ashimi, 932 F.2d 643 (7th Cir. 1991) (affidavits or actual testimony necessary to prove uncalled witness claims)
United States v. Moya, 676 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2012) (review of denial of evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Cervini, 379 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 2004) (vague proffers do not support evidentiary hearings)
United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2000) (§ 2255 evidentiary hearing statutory standard)