
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brett W. ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-3037
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Filed October 17, 2017
    Carrie N. Capwell, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Brett W. Ellis, Pro Se
    Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge

Appellant seeks a certificate of appeala-bility to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in a search of his residence and computers, Appellant pled guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to a below-guidelines sentence of seventy-two months. In his § 2255 petition, he raised several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, all relating to the unsuccessful motion to suppress.

The district court denied Appellant’s § 2255 petition in a comprehensive twenty-three page order, in which the court analyzed each of Appellant’s claims and explained why each claim failed to show constitutionally ineffective advocacy and/or prejudice under the Supreme Court’s governing Strickland standard. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

After thoroughly reviewing Appellant’s brief and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the district court’s ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). For substantially the same reasons given by the district court, we DENY Appellant’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. 
      
       This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.
     