
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Joel PARRA, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 09-8091.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Feb. 24, 2010.
    David A. Kubichek, Esq., Office of the United States Attorney, Casper, WY, Kelly Harrison Rankin, Office of the United States Attorney, Cheyenne, WY, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Joel Parra, Safford, AZ, pro se.
    
      Before HARTZ, SEYMOUR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

HARRIS L. HARTZ, Circuit Judge.

We granted a certificate of appealability to permit Joel Antonio Parra to appeal the dismissal of his motion for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (requiring certificate of ap-pealability to appeal denial of motion under § 2255). Mr. Parra challenges the ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming that his motion did not adequately allege a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. But if one liberally construes his pro se motion, see Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991) (requiring liberal construction of pro se pleadings), it alleges (1) that his attorney failed to consult with him about pursuing an appeal and (2) that his attorney failed to honor his request to file an appeal. As conceded by the government in its candid and helpful answer brief in this court, dismissal of those claims was improper. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000); United States v. Guerrero, 488 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir.2007). In particular, Mr. Parra could prevail on those claims without showing that he had a meritorious issue on appeal.

We REVERSE the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings on Mr. Parra’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We GRANT the government’s motion to supplement the record and Mr. Parra’s request to proceed informa pauperis. 
      
       After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     