Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Broades v. Gibson, 10th Cir. (2007)
Broades v. Gibson, 10th Cir. (2007)
No. 06-7120
v.
Respondent-Appellee.
OR DER *
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
-4-
January 2001 denial of his motion to recall mandate, where we explicitly held
that [t]o the extent M r. Broades . . . now contend[s] we never addressed the
merits of his other claims raised in his [original] petition namely, his
ineffective assistance of counsel claim we note he failed to raise them on
appeal, and thereby abandoned or waived them. R. vol. 1, D oc. 49, App. 2 at 2
n.1.
This is the fourth petition M r. Broades has brought before us attacking the
district courts denial of habeas corpus some seven years ago. W e cannot say
emphatically enough: M r. Broadess claims are without merit. They do not meet
the standard for relief spelled out in Rule 60(b), they do not deserve COA, and as
we have said twice previously, R. vol. 1, D oc. 49, App. 2; Broades v. Poppell,
No. 02-7156, slip op. at 1-2 (10th Cir. Dec. 30, 2002), they do not qualify him to
file a successive habeas petition. Further litigation on these issues w ould
constitute an egregious waste of taxpayer resources.
Accordingly, we D EN Y M r. Broadess request for a COA and DISM ISS
this appeal.
Entered for the Court,
M ichael W . M cConnell
Circuit Judge
-6-