Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-23

The Tenth Circuit denied Melvin Louis Bailey, III a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismissed his appeal from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. The court held that Bailey failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), meaning reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s resolution of his claims. Regarding Bailey’s claim that his confession should have been suppressed due to lack of proof regarding his sobriety, the court affirmed the district court’s procedural default ruling. The court found no reasonable jurist could debate that the claim was barred because Bailey failed to raise it on direct appeal and did not demonstrate cause or actual prejudice to excuse the default. Regarding Bailey’s claim challenging his § 924(c) convictions based on *United States v. Taylor*, which held attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence, the court applied harmless error analysis under *Hedgpeth v. Pulido*. The court concluded that reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s finding that any instructional error was harmless because overwhelming evidence supported a rational jury’s finding that Bailey completed the three underlying robberies, which are valid crimes of violence. Finally, the court found Bailey’s “Illegal Sentence” claim meritless due to a complete lack of factual support. As a practical consequence, Bailey’s appeal is terminated, his § 2255 motion remains denied, and his appointed appellate counsel is granted leave to withdraw from representation.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.