United States v. Scott
630 F. App'x 745
10th Cir.2015Background
- Lauren Elizabeth Scott pleaded guilty to fraud and money-laundering for a scheme selling non‑existent wind‑farm investments and is serving a federal sentence.
- Scott, proceeding pro se, sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
- Many issues she raised on appeal were not presented to the district court and thus were forfeited on appeal.
- Her remaining claims chiefly alleged ineffective assistance of counsel (at plea and sentencing), the district court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing, suppression/consideration of an affidavit from her brother asserting her innocence, and judicial recusal.
- The district court denied relief; the Tenth Circuit reviewed the § 2255 denial under the COA standard and applied governing ineffective‑assistance and procedural rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance at plea | Scott claims counsel failed to disclose correct Guidelines exposure (asserts she would not have pleaded guilty) | Counsel allegedly misinformed her about guideline range and risks | Rejected — plea colloquy shows Scott was informed of advisory range and understood court would calculate final range; conclusory collateral claims overcome by solemn in‑court statements |
| Ineffective assistance at sentencing / PSR objections | Counsel failed to object to allegedly false or fabricated information in PSR (e.g., a map) and failed to challenge enhancements | The PSR errors increased her sentence; counsel was ineffective for not contesting them | Rejected — Scott did not identify specific false statements or show how any allegedly false PSR material increased her sentence; she reviewed PSR with counsel at sentencing |
| Denial of evidentiary hearing | Court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing before sentencing or on § 2255 (unclear which) | An evidentiary hearing would develop facts supporting her claims | Rejected — Scott failed to identify what testimony or facts an evidentiary hearing would produce or why those facts would change the result |
| Actual innocence based on brother’s affidavit | Brother’s affidavit and unidentified documents allegedly show Scott was unaware of criminal activity and thus actually innocent | The affidavit constitutes new reliable evidence that would make it improbable any juror would convict | Rejected — affidavit is not new, reliable, or powerful enough to overcome her guilty plea; does not meet the high actual‑innocence standard |
| Recusal of district judge | Judge should have recused for bias or protecting misconduct | Allegations are mainly about adverse rulings and general assertions of favoritism toward prosecutors | Rejected — adverse rulings are insufficient; allegations of extrajudicial bias lack particularity and substantiation |
Key Cases Cited
- Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2003) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (courts do not act as pro se litigant’s counsel)
- United States v. Viera, 674 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2012) (issues not raised below generally forfeited on appeal)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA standard requires debatable resolution of claim)
- Lasiter v. Thomas, 89 F.3d 699 (10th Cir. 1996) (ineffective‑assistance prejudice standard)
- United States v. Silva, 430 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2005) (ineffective assistance in guilty plea context requires showing defendant would have insisted on trial)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (solemn in‑court statements carry strong presumption of verity)
- United States v. Horey, 333 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2003) (ineffective assistance as to sentencing requires showing counsel’s deficiency led to harsher sentence)
- United States v. Cervini, 379 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 2004) (actual‑innocence standard for post‑conviction relief requires new, reliable evidence convincing no reasonable juror would convict)
- Glass v. Pfeffer, 849 F.2d 1261 (10th Cir. 1988) (adverse rulings alone do not justify recusal)
- United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 1993) (recusal allegations must be particularized and substantiated)
DENIED: COA; appeal DISMISSED.