
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Adrian SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-3126
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Filed October 21, 2016
    James A. Brown, Duston J. Slinkard, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Topeka, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard Adrian Sanchez, Pro Se.
    Before KELLY, McKAY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Paul J, Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge

Petitioner-Defendant Richard Adrian Sanchez, a federal inmate appearing pro se, seeks to appeal from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. United States v. Sanchez, No. 11-40085-01-JAR, 2016 WL 1377344 (D. Kan. Apr. 6, 2016). Because Mr. Sanchez has not made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we deny his request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) and dismiss the appeal. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

A jury convicted Mr. Sanchez of possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 262 months’ imprisonment and his conviction was affirmed on appeal,' where he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Sanchez, 553 Fed.Appx. 842, 844-45 (10th Cir. 2014). In his § 2265 motion, he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, he argues that counsel was ineffective because: (1) counsel did not attempt to challenge as deceptive and coercive the search of the vehicle that Mr. Sanchez was driving, and (2) counsel did not object to the criminal history score contained in the pre-sentence investigation report.

To obtain a COA, Mr. Sanchez must show “that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El. v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Mr. Sanchez was required to prove deficient performance and prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Having reviewed Mr. Sanchez’s claims on appeal in light of the district court’s resolution, we are satisfied that he cannot meet this standard. Mr. Sanchez raised the consent issue pretrial and the district court found that his consent was voluntary. United States v. Sanchez, No. 11-cr-40085-JAR, 2011 WL 6091744, at *7 (D. Kan. Dec. 7, 2011). Thus, there is no deficient performance; the additional facts he now highlights certainly do not suggest a reasonable probability that the suppression motion would have been granted. As to ineffective assistance concerning the criminal history score, Mr. Sanchez has failed to show that, but for any of the alleged errors of counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings would have been different. Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Thus, the district court’s resolution is not reasonably debatable.

Accordingly, we DENY a COA, DENY IFP status, and DISMISS the appeal.  