United States v. Palmer
699 F. App'x 836
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2012 a federal grand jury charged Rodney James Palmer with producing and possessing child pornography; Palmer pled guilty under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to producing child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)).
- The district court accepted the plea after a plea hearing and found a factual basis for the plea.
- Palmer moved to withdraw his plea before sentencing; the district court held an evidentiary hearing, denied the motion, and concluded the plea was voluntary and counsel effective. The district court then sentenced Palmer to 210 months as agreed.
- Palmer appealed the denial of the motion to withdraw his plea; the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence (reported at 630 F. App'x 795).
- Palmer filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion asserting (1) the court lacked jurisdiction because he is a "sovereign state citizen" and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate that defense; the district court denied relief, finding the ineffective-assistance claim barred by his appellate waiver and the sovereign-citizen claim frivolous.
- Palmer sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit to appeal the denial of his § 2255 motion; the court denied the COA and dismissed the matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Palmer's ineffective-assistance claim is exempt from his plea/agreement appellate waiver | Palmer: counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/raise sovereign-citizen defense | Government: the written plea agreement’s appellate waiver bars collateral ineffective-assistance claims not tied to plea negotiation/entry | Held: Claim falls within the appellate waiver; COA denied |
| Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction over Palmer because he is a "sovereign state citizen" | Palmer: his sovereign status places him outside federal jurisdiction | Government: federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over federal offenses; sovereign-citizen theory is baseless | Held: Sovereign-citizen claim is frivolous; COA denied |
| Whether reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s procedural ruling denying § 2255 relief | Palmer: procedural ruling debatable because of alleged constitutional defects | Government: procedural ruling correct—waiver and frivolousness preclude relief | Held: No; reasonable jurists could not debate the rulings; no COA |
| Whether the § 2255 issues merit encouragement to proceed further | Palmer: issues warrant appellate review | Government: issues are barred or frivolous and do not merit further review | Held: Issues inadequate to deserve encouragement; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2011) (rejecting sovereign-citizen and similar jurisdictional theories as meritless)
- Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440 (10th Cir. 1990) (rejecting tax-protester / related jurisdictional arguments)
- United States v. Palmer, [citation="630 F. App'x 795"] (10th Cir. 2015) (prior appeal rejecting Palmer’s challenge to denial of motion to withdraw plea)