United States v. Roark

── United States v. Roark ── Case No.: 25-5169 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 27, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-5169 Document: 17 Date Filed: 03/27/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 27, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-5169 (D.C. Nos. 4:25-CV-00423-GKF-MTS & LANCE DOUGLAS ROARK, 4:23-CR-00262-GKF-1) (N.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, PHILLIPS, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Lance Roark, proceeding pro se, 1 applies for a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. For the reasons below, we DENY a COA and DISMISS this matter. I. Background In January 2024, a federal jury convicted Roark of abusive sexual contact in Indian Country with a minor under twelve years old (Count One), and assault in Indian Country with intent to commit aggravated sexual abuse of a minor under twelve years old * This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. 1 We construe Roark’s application liberally, but we will not act as his advocate. See Luo v. Wang, 71 F.4th 1289, 1291 n.1 (10th Cir. 2023).  Appellate Case: 25-5169 Document: 17 Date Filed: 03/27/2026 Page: 2 (Count Two). See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a)(5), 113(a)(1). Roark’s victim was his then- eleven-year-old daughter. After the jury’s verdict, the district court reconsidered and granted Roark’s pretrial Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal on Count Two. But after the government moved for reconsideration, the district court reversed course and vacated the judgment of acquittal. The district court subsequently sentenced Roark to 235 months in prison. Roark appealed his convictions. He argued (1) the district court erred by not instructing the jury on unanimity; (2) the district court erred by granting the government’s motion for reconsideration of the judgment of acquittal; and (3) the government did not present sufficient evidence for the jury to convict him of Count Two. We affirmed his convictions on all grounds. See generally United States v. Roark, 140 F.4th 1280 (10th Cir. 2025). In August 2025, Roark moved the district court to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He alleged (1) the district court did not have jurisdiction over his case because the government lacked Article III standing to prosecute him; (2) ineffective assistance of his standby counsel; and (3) various grounds that constituted a mistrial. The district court denied his § 2255 motion on all grounds and denied a COA. Roark then applied for a COA from this court and separately moved for an emergency hearing. We issue a COA “only if the applicant ha