Haslam v. USA

Filing 1

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING Motion to Vacate (2255) and DENYING the issuance of a certificate of appealability. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 4/23/2018. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(rmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DANIEL HASLAM

)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:13-CR-013 JD
3:13-CR-109
3:17-CV-653

OPINION AND ORDER
Daniel Haslam was charged with a variety of firearm and controlled substance offenses
arising out of his manufacturing of methamphetamine and his possession of firearms and
silencers. He pled guilty in return for the government’s agreement to dismiss a count that would
have carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years. The parties agreed in the plea
agreement to a binding floor of 180 months of imprisonment, and the Court accepted that
agreement. Mr. Haslam later moved to withdraw his plea, but the Court denied that motion and
ultimately sentenced Mr. Haslam to a term of 181 months. On appeal, Mr. Haslam argued that
his plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the government breached the plea agreement.
The court of appeals rejected both arguments and affirmed.
Mr. Haslam now seeks to vacate his convictions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that
he is innocent of one count, that his sentence on another count is unlawful, and that he
misunderstood the government’s ability to present evidence of other alleged criminal conduct at
sentencing. He argues that each of these issues was the result of his attorney’s ineffective
assistance. For the following reasons, the Court finds that Mr. Haslam is not entitled to relief and
that no hearing is required on these claims, so it denies Mr. Haslam’s motion.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mr. Haslam came to the attention of law enforcement when a woman named Laci Sample
reported that he battered her and confined her at his home. Ms. Sample had been dating Mr.

Haslam for a couple weeks at the time of the incident. She reported that Mr. Haslam became
suspicious that she was an undercover officer, after which he began beating her and held her
against her will over two days. She further reported that, during that time, Mr. Haslam repeatedly
screwed and unscrewed several homemade silencers onto the end of a gun barrel, and that he
fired multiple shots into the floor. In response to Ms. Sample’s report, officers executed a search
warrant at Mr. Haslam’s home. They found evidence that he had been manufacturing
methamphetamine. They also discovered several firearms and a number of devices that appeared
to be homemade silencers. [DE 1].
Mr. Haslam was federally indicted on four counts. Count 1 charged that Mr. Haslam
possessed an unregistered silencer, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Count 2 charged that he
manufactured methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Count 3 charged that he
possessed firearms equipped with a silencer in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Count 4 charged that he possessed firearms as an unlawful user
of controlled substances, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). Most notably, Count 3 carried a
mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years of imprisonment because it involved a firearm
equipped with a silencer. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii).
Leading up to trial, the parties began negotiating a plea agreement under which the
government would agree to dismiss Count 3 in return for an agreement to a binding floor of 15
years of imprisonment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). The first plea agreement offered by the
government had Mr. Haslam agreeing to plead guilty to the remaining three counts and to an
information charging him with discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime,
which carried a 10-year minimum sentence, § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), as compared to the 30-year
minimum in Count 3. The factual basis set forth in that plea agreement recounted Ms. Sample’s

2

allegations of battery and confinement. [DE 146-1 p. 6–7]. However, while Mr. Haslam was
willing to admit to unlawfully possessing firearms and silencers and to manufacturing
methamphetamine, he denied Ms. Sample’s allegations, so he was unwilling to accept that
agreement.
The government therefore offered an amended plea agreement that removed Ms.
Sample’s allegations from the factual basis. The agreement still required Mr. Haslam to plead
guilty to the information charging that he discharged a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime. Mr. Haslam denied that he discharged the firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, though. Accordingly, the government offered a third plea agreement under
which the information charged only that Mr. Haslam possessed the firearm in furtherance of a
drug trafficking crime, which carries a minimum sentence of 5 years. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).
Mr. Haslam accepted that version of the plea agreement, and the Court referred the plea
to a magistrate judge to conduct a change of plea hearing. At that hearing on September 19,
2013, Mr. Haslam stated under oath that he had read and understood the plea agreement. [DE 92
p. 18]. He also stated that there were not any promises that were causing him to plead guilty that
were not contained in the written plea agreement. Id. p. 18–19. The plea agreement itself
likewise stated, “[o]ther than what is contained in this plea agreement, no predictions, promises,
or representations have been made to me as to the specific sentence that will be imposed or any
other matter,” and that “no promises have been made to me other than those contained in this
petition.” [DE 52 ¶¶ 9(l), 12]. The agreement further noted, “The defendant fully understands
that the United States of America has reserved the right to tell the Sentencing Court the good
things about him, and the bad things about him, and has reserved the right to fully inform the
Court of the nature and extent of his offense(s).” Id. ¶ 9(g). After receiving all of the advisements

3

under Rule 11, Mr. Haslam pled guilty to possessing unregistered silencers (Count 1);
manufacturing methamphetamine (Count 2); possessing firearms as an unlawful user of
controlled substances (Count 4); and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime (the information). The magistrate judge recommended that the Court accept the pleas.
At that point, the government sent the probation office a memorandum containing its
version of the offense conduct, for use in preparing the Presentence Report. The government’s
memorandum included Ms. Sample’s allegations of battery and confinement. Based on those
allegations, the Presentence Report calculated the Sentencing Guidelines by using a crossreference to the guideline for unlawful restraint, and it also applied enhancements for serious
bodily injury and restraining a victim, among other enhancements. Mr. Haslam, by counsel,
submitted a number of objections to the Presentence Report. As relevant here, he argued that the
Sample allegations were outside the scope of relevant conduct for his offenses of conviction, and
he also denied the truth of those allegations. The Court thus set an evidentiary hearing, which
spanned two days of testimony, and took the objections under advisement. At the
commencement of that hearing on December 20, 2013, the Court accepted Mr. Haslam’s guilty
pleas and the plea agreement. Up until that point, Mr. Haslam had an absolute right to withdraw
his plea for any reason. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(1). He did not do so during that time, even after
becoming aware that the government was raising the Sample incident and that those details were
included in the Presentence Report.
After the conclusion of hearing, though, Mr. Haslam did move to withdraw his guilty
plea. His primary argument was that the government breached the plea agreement. He contended
that, by deleting Ms. Sample’s allegations from the factual basis in the plea agreement, the
government was agreeing not to raise any of those allegations at sentencing, and that the

4

government breached that agreement. He also argued in passing that, regardless of any promise
by the government, his plea was not knowing and voluntary. The Court rejected both arguments.
There was no evidence, either in the plea agreement itself or otherwise, that the government had
ever agreed not to raise the Sample allegations at sentencing; though deleting those allegations
from the plea agreement preserved Mr. Haslam’s right to contest those allegations at sentencing,
it did not also prohibit the government from seeking to prove them. Thus, the government did not
breach the agreement by presenting evidence in support of Ms. Sample’s allegations at
sentencing. In addition, Mr. Haslam’s statements under oath at the change of plea hearing
confirmed that his plea was knowing and voluntary, so the Court denied the motion to withdraw
the plea.
The Court thus proceeded to resolve the objections to the presentence report. It sustained
some of Mr. Haslam’s and overruled others, but it generally credited Ms. Sample’s testimony
that Mr. Haslam had beaten and confined her. The Court’s rulings resulted in a total guideline
range of 211 to 248 months of imprisonment (151 to 188 months on the three counts of the
indictment, plus 60 months on the § 924(c) count in the information). The Court then reconvened
the sentencing hearing. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Court varied
downward from that advisory guideline range and imposed a total sentence of 181 months of
imprisonment—only one month above the binding floor in the parties’ plea agreement.
Mr. Haslam appealed his convictions. He first argued that the government had breached
an agreement not to raise the Sample incident at sentencing. He also argued that, even if the
government had not made such an agreement, he believed that the government had done so and
that Ms. Sample’s allegations could not be raised at sentencing, so his plea was not knowing and
voluntary. The Seventh Circuit rejected both arguments and affirmed. United States v. Haslam,

5

833 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2016). Mr. Haslam’s convictions became final when the Supreme Court
denied his petition for certiorari on January 23, 2017. Haslam v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 840
(2017). Mr. Haslam then timely filed a motion to vacate his convictions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
and that motion has been fully briefed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Section 2255(a) of Title 28 provides that a federal prisoner “claiming the right to be
released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws
of the United States . . . may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or
correct the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). The Seventh Circuit has recognized that § 2255 relief
is appropriate only for “an error of law that is jurisdictional, constitutional, or constitutes a
fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.” Harris v.
United States, 366 F.3d 593, 594 (7th Cir. 2004). Relief under § 2255 is extraordinary because it
seeks to reopen the criminal process to a person who has already had an opportunity of full
process. Almonacid v. United States, 476 F.3d 518, 521 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Kafo v. United
States, 467 F.3d 1063, 1068 (7th Cir. 2006)).
III. DISCUSSION
Mr. Haslam offers three grounds in support of his motion. First, he argues that he is
innocent of Count 1, for possessing unregistered silencers. Second, he argues that his sentence on
Count 2, for manufacturing methamphetamine, is unlawful and that no term of imprisonment
was authorized for that conviction. And third, he argues that at the time he entered his plea, he
misunderstood the government’s ability to raise other criminal conduct at sentencing, in

6

particular the Sample incident. He makes each of these arguments through the lens of an
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.1
The Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. To
prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show: (1) that his
counsel’s performance was deficient, meaning that it fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness; and (2) that he was prejudiced by the deficiencies in his counsel’s performance,
meaning that there is a reasonable probability that the results of the proceeding would have been
different with effective representation. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 687 (1984). “To show
prejudice in the plea bargaining context, a defendant must show that ‘there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded and would have insisted on
going to trial.’” Gaylord v. United States, 829 F.3d 500, 506 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting United
States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 359 (7th Cir. 2005)); see also Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156,
163 (2012) (“In the context of pleas a defendant must show the outcome of the plea process
would have been different with competent advice.”). In the sentencing context, a defendant must
show that there is a reasonable probably that the results of the sentencing hearing would have
been different but for the ineffective assistance. Fuller v. United States, 398 F.3d 644, 650 (7th
Cir. 2005).

1

The government argues that the first two claims are procedurally defaulted if they are presented
as standalone claims. Mr. Haslam confirms in his reply, though, that he is bringing these claims
only as ineffective-assistance claims, which cannot be procedurally defaulted. Massaro v. United
States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003). The government also argues that the first two claims are barred by
the waiver in Mr. Haslam’s plea agreement, but the Court need not reach that argument, as these
claims plainly fail on their merits.
7

A.

Conviction for Possession of Unregistered Silencers
Mr. Haslam first argues that he is innocent of the charge in Count 1 for possessing

unregistered silencers, and that his attorney was ineffective for failing to advise him of that fact
and for permitting him to plead guilty to that charge. Mr. Haslam argues that the statute does not
permit or require him, as a mere possessor, to register the silencer, so it could not have been
unlawful for him to possess it without registration.
The statute makes it unlawful for a person “to receive or possess a firearm which is not
registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.” 26 U.S.C.
§ 5861(d). As used in that provision, the term “firearm” includes silencers. 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a).
The elements of this offense are that (1) the defendant “consciously possessed what he knew to
be a firearm,” (2) he “was aware of the features that brought his [firearm] within the realm of
regulation,” and (3) “the firearm was unregistered.” United States v. Jamison, 635 F.3d 962,
967–68 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations and alterations omitted); see also Staples v. United
States, 511 U.S. 600, 602–03 (1994) (“Section 5861(d) makes it a crime, punishable by up to 10
years in prison, see § 5871, for any person to possess a firearm that is not properly registered.”);
United States v. Sanders, 520 F.3d 699, 700 (7th Cir. 2008).
Here, Mr. Haslam admitted to each of those elements at his change of plea hearing, [DE
92 p. 23–25], so he is guilty of this offense. In arguing to the contrary, Mr. Haslam cites to
§ 5841(b), which requires a “manufacturer, importer, [or] maker” to register each firearm, and
requires the transferor of a firearm to register it to the transferee. Mr. Haslam argues that he was
only a possessor of firearms, not a manufacturer, importer, or maker, so he was not required to
register the firearms. And because he was not required to register the firearms, he concludes, he
was allowed to possess them even if they were unregistered. That conclusion does not follow.
Regardless of whether Mr. Haslam was required or permitted to register the firearms himself,
8

§ 5861(d) prohibits anyone from possessing a firearm that is not registered to him. Staples, 511
U.S. at 602–03. Even accepting Mr. Haslam’s premise that the statute did not allow him to
register the firearms,2 all that would mean would be that he could not lawfully possess the
firearms at all—not that he could possess them even if they were unregistered. The statute is
explicit and makes it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm not registered to him. § 5861(d).
Mr. Haslam did so and thus committed this offense. There is no further element of proof that the
person would have been able to register the firearm if he tried. See Jamison, 65 F.3d at 967–68.
Accordingly, Mr. Haslam’s attorney was not ineffective for advising him to plead guilty
to this count, and this argument cannot support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
B.

Sentence for Manufacturing Methamphetamine
Mr. Haslam next argues that his attorney was ineffective for allowing him to be

sentenced to a term of imprisonment on his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine. He
argues that this count, as charged and convicted, does not authorize any term of imprisonment, so
the 121-month term of imprisonment that the Court imposed on this count was unlawful.
Mr. Haslam was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1). As Mr. Haslam notes, § 841(a) only defines offense conduct, it does not specify any
penalties. The penalties for that offense are set forth in various subparts under § 841(b), and they
vary based on factors like the type and quantity of the substances in question. Because those
factors can affect both the minimum and maximum statutory penalties, they must be charged in
the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, either to the jury at trial or through the

2

This premise is itself flawed, though, as Mr. Haslam admitted in his plea agreement that he was
manufacturing the silencers, [DE 52 ¶ 9(b)], meaning he was required to register them as a
“maker” of silencers. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841(b); 5845(i).
9

defendant’s admissions at a change of plea hearing. Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013);
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
Mr. Haslam argues that he was only convicted under § 841(a), not any of the penalty
provisions under § 841(b), so he could not have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment on
that count. His argument fails, though, because he was charged with and admitted to all of the
facts necessary to impose a sentence of up to 20 years under § 841(b)(1)(C). That provision
authorizes a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years “[i]n the case of a controlled
substance in schedule I or II.” § 841(b)(1)(C). Methamphetamine is a schedule II controlled
substance, so an offense involving methamphetamine will be subject to at least the 20-year
maximum term in § 841(b)(1)(C). United States v. Macedo, 406 F.3d 778, 785 (7th Cir. 2005)
(holding that methamphetamine is a schedule II controlled substance); Lugue v. Lynch, 640 F.
App’x 545, 549 (7th Cir. 2016) (“[A]ll forms of methamphetamine have been classified by
regulation as Schedule II substances, subject to a 20-year maximum sentence, for the past 45
years.” (emphasis omitted)). Here, the indictment charged in Count 2 that Mr. Haslam
“knowingly and intentionally manufactured methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled
substance.” [DE 15]. And Mr. Haslam admitted at his change of plea hearing that he
manufactured methamphetamine. [DE 92 p. 26 (“I had taken some pills and manufactured some
meth . . . .”)]. Thus, the facts necessary to impose a sentence under § 841(b)(1)(C) were charged
in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.3

3

To the extent Mr. Haslam’s complaint is that the indictment cites only to § 841(a)(1), and not
also to the penalty provision of § 841(b)(1)(C), his argument fails, as an indictment need not
include such a detail and the indictment does allege the facts necessary to trigger that provision.
United States v. Ocampo, 890 F.2d 1363, 1373 (7th Cir. 1989) (“The indictment need not cite to
an enhanced penalty provision, but instead must only make a defendant aware of the possibility
that enhanced penalty provisions could apply.”); see also United States v. Phillips, 645 F.3d 859,
861 (7th Cir. 2011) (“In order for an indictment to be sufficient, it must identify the elements of
10

In short, Mr. Haslam was not, as he claims, convicted for “a violation of § 841(a)
alone”—he was charged and convicted for violating § 841(a) by manufacturing
methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled substance that subjected him to the penalties in
§ 841(b)(1)(C). Mr. Haslam’s 121-month sentence on that count was thus within the authorized
range of imprisonment under the statute, and his attorney was not ineffective for failing to object
to that term.
C.

Relevant Conduct at Sentencing
Finally, Mr. Haslam argues that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance in connection

with his guilty plea by failing to properly advise him about the government’s ability to present
evidence of other alleged criminal conduct at sentencing. In particular, he argues that he believed
that the plea agreement prevented the government from raising Ms. Sample’s allegations of
battery and confinement. He asserts that if his attorney had properly advised him to the contrary,
and he knew that the government could still bring the Sample incident up at sentencing, he
would not have pled guilty but would have proceeded to trial.
To establish the prejudice element for this claim, Mr. Haslam would have to prove that
(1) because of his attorney’s ineffective assistance, he misunderstood the government’s ability to
raise the Sample incident at sentencing, and (2) he would not have pled guilty absent that
misunderstanding. See Thompson v. United States, 732 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2013) (holding that the
defendant could not establish prejudice where the record showed he properly understood the
consequences of his plea); Berkey v. United States, 318 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2003) (rejecting an
ineffective-assistance claim where, despite the defendant’s arguments to the contrary, his

the crime, fairly inform the defendant of the charge so that he may prepare a defense, and enable
the defendant to evaluate any double jeopardy problems. We have consistently held that nothing
more is required.” (internal citations omitted)).
11

statements at the change of plea hearing confirmed that he understood the sentencing process and
his potential sentences, and that no promises were made to induce his plea).
Mr. Haslam’s claim thus fails because this Court and the court of appeals have already
concluded that Mr. Haslam did not plead guilty under any such misunderstanding. Those
conclusions came in the context of finding that Mr. Haslam’s plea was knowing and voluntary,
but the underlying facts and arguments are the same as to both inquiries. Mr. Haslam argued
previously that he did not understand that the government could bring up the Sample incident at
sentencing, so his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Haslam, 833 F.3d at 846 (“[Mr. Haslam]
contends that he didn’t knowingly enter into the plea agreement because he mistakenly thought
that it prevented the government from introducing the Sample evidence.”). He now argues that
he did not understand that the government could bring up the Sample incident at sentencing, so
he was prejudiced by his attorney’s ineffective assistance. Yet this Court denied Mr. Haslam’s
motion to withdraw his guilty plea and the Seventh Circuit affirmed Mr. Haslam’s conviction on
appeal, concluding that Ms. Haslam did understand the consequences of his plea, as confirmed
by his statements under oath at the change of plea hearing.
In particular, Mr. Haslam stated at the change of plea hearing that no promises were
made to him that were causing him to plead guilty that were not contained in the written plea
agreement. [DE 92 p. 18]. The plea agreement also notes twice that no promises were made other
than those reflected in the agreement. [DE 52 ¶ 9(l) (“Other than what is contained in this plea
agreement, no predictions, promises, or representations have been made to me as to the specific
sentence that will be imposed or any other matter.”), ¶ 12 (“[N]o promises have been made to me
other than those contained in this petition . . . .”). And the plea agreement does not contain any
promise or representation that the government would not raise the Sample incident at sentencing.

12

Thus, Mr. Haslam’s sworn statements at the change of plea hearing foreclose his later
claims that he thought the government had agreed not to raise that incident. As the Seventh
Circuit explained on Mr. Haslam’s direct appeal:
In his plea colloquy, Haslam told the magistrate judge under oath that he understood
the plea agreement and that no promises were made to induce him to plead guilty
other than those contained in the written plea agreement itself. These sworn
statements directly contradict Haslam’s claim that he proceeded on the
understanding that the government had made an extrinsic promise to refrain from
presenting evidence of the Sample incident at sentencing. Haslam’s argument
necessarily entails an assertion that he lied to the magistrate judge. The district
judge was entitled to reject this assertion out of hand unless Haslam presented a
compelling explanation for his perjury. United States v. Peterson, 414 F.3d 825,
827 (7th Cir. 2005) (“[A] motion that can succeed only if the defendant committed
perjury at the plea proceedings may be rejected out of hand unless the defendant
has a compelling explanation for the contradiction.”). He did not do so.
Haslam, 833 F.3d at 846–47.
On top of that, Mr. Haslam stated in the plea agreement that he “fully understands that
the United States of American has reserved the right to tell the Sentencing Court the good things
about him, and the bad things about him, and has reserved the right to fully inform the Court of
the nature and extent of his offense(s).” [DE 52 ¶ 9(g) (emphases added)]. Mr. Haslam stated
under oath at the change of plea hearing that he had read the plea agreement and that he
understood it. [DE 92 p. 18]. Mr. Haslam acknowledges this provision in his motion, and argues
that his attorney was ineffective for allowing it to be in the plea agreement, thus permitting the
government to raise the Sample incident. As just noted, however, Mr. Haslam knew that this
paragraph was in the plea agreement (as he testified that he read and understood it). Id. With that
knowledge, he still signed the plea agreement and still entered his guilty plea. Thus, Mr. Haslam
cannot show that he was under any misunderstanding about the government’s ability to raise this
incident at the time he entered his plea.

13

In sum, Mr. Haslam’s statements under oath at the change of plea hearing confirm that,
notwithstanding any erroneous advice he may have received from his attorney, he nonetheless
understood that the government was not prevented from raising the Sample incident at
sentencing. Thus, he cannot show that he was prejudiced by any ineffective assistance, so his
claim fails. See Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 142 (2012) (“Before a guilty plea is entered the
defendant’s understanding of the plea and its consequences can be established on the record.
This affords the State substantial protection against later claims that the plea was the result of
inadequate advice.”); Thompson, 732 F.3d at 830 (“[The defendant] cannot show that [his
attorney’s] alleged failure to clarify the sentencing consequences of pleading guilty to conspiracy
was a ‘decisive factor’ in his decision to forgo trial because the district court’s explanation of the
sentencing process at [the defendant’s] plea colloquy removed any possible prejudice of [the
attorney’s] advice.”); Berkey, 318 F.3d at 773.
For the same reasons, Mr. Haslam is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this claim.
The dispositive facts underlying this claim have already been addressed at a hearing—the change
of plea hearing—and Mr. Haslam’s sworn statements at that hearing preclude relief on this
claim. Mr. Haslam does not attempt to account for those previous statements, and he is not
entitled to a new hearing on this motion in order to show that he perjured himself at a prior
hearing. Thompson, 732 F.3d at 829; Peterson, 414 F.3d at 827. Likewise, because no hearing or
discovery is warranted on Mr. Haslam’s claims, he is not entitled to the appointment of counsel
on this motion. Oliver v. United States, 961 F.2d 1339, 1343 (7th Cir. 1992). Therefore, the
Court denies Mr. Haslam’s motion.
IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United
States District Courts, the Court must “issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a
14

final order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability may be issued “only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c); Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District
Courts. The substantial showing standard is met when “reasonable jurists could debate whether
(or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4
(1983)); see Young v. United States, 523 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2008). Here, for the reasons just
discussed, the Court does not find that Mr. Haslam has made a substantial showing of the denial
of any constitutional rights, or that any issues in this motion are adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further. The Court therefore denies the issuance of a certificate of
appealability.
The Court advises Mr. Haslam that pursuant to Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, when the district judge denies a certificate of appealability, the applicant
may request a circuit judge to issue the certificate. The Court further advises Mr. Haslam that
any notice of appeal of this judgment must be filed within 60 days after the judgment is entered.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a); Guyton v. United States, 453 F.3d 425, 427 (7th Cir. 2006) (stating that
“the time to contest the erroneous denial of [the defendant’s] first § 2255 motion was within 60
days of the decision”).
V. CONCLUSION
For those reasons, the Court DENIES Mr. Haslam’s motion for relief under § 2255 [DE
138], and DENIES the issuance of a certificate of appealability. The Clerk is DIRECTED to
enter judgment accordingly.

15

SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: April 23, 2018
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
Judge
United States District Court

16