Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Sparks, 10th Cir. (2016)
United States v. Sparks, 10th Cir. (2016)
Clerk of Court
No. 15-5062
(D.C. Nos. 4:14-CV-00212-TCK-TLW
and 4:07-CR-00065-TCK-3)
(N.D. Okla.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Hoggard had no connection to Mr. Sparkss case. Ms. Oliveras also claimed that
she continued to fear Mr. Sparks because of his ongoing threats to her father. Mr.
Hoggards declaration corroborated Ms. Oliverass. The final declaration, from
Gayla Stewart, a Victim/Witness Coordinator in the United States Attorneys
Office for the Northern District of Oklahoma, confirmed Ms. Oliverass reports of
Mr. Sparkss threats to her father from jail.
The district court concluded that all three claims for relief failed. First,
Mr. Sparkss claims were based on an affidavit containing inadmissible hearsay,
which the court could disregard. See Neill v. Gibson, 278 F.3d 1044, 1056 (10th
Cir. 2001); United States v. Lowe, 6 F. Appx 832, 837 n.6 (10th Cir. 2001)
(unpublished, cited for its persuasive value). Second, the government presented
evidence from the two persons with firsthand knowledge of the relationship
completely inconsistent with the hearsay affidavit. Because no real question of
fact and no need to weigh the credibility of witnesses existed, the court denied
Mr. Sparkss 2255 motion, declined to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and
denied a COA. Sparks, 2015 WL 2137478, at *5. The district courts analysis
and disposition are not reasonably debatable. Mr. Sparks has offered no authority
to suggest that reasonable jurists would find it so.
-3-
-4-