United States v. Buzzard

── United States v. Buzzard ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-5071 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 16, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-5071 (D.C. No. 4:21-CR-00351-GKF-3) JAMES WILLIAM BUZZARD, (N.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, MURPHY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. ________________________________ A jury convicted James Buzzard of first-degree murder in Indian Country and related crimes. The district court sentenced him to life in prison. Prior to his trial, the government had offered Buzzard a plea deal recommending a sentence between 63 to 78 months, but Buzzard rejected it. Eventually, the government revoked the plea deal. Buzzard’s counsel grew concerned that he may have inadvertently failed to convey that the plea deal had a firm expiration date, and that failure might have violated Buzzard’s Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel. He requested the * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and 10th Circuit Rule 32.1. 1  Appellate Case: 25-5071 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 2 court hold a hearing on the issue, and, because of counsel’s potential conflict, appoint separate counsel for the hearing. The court agreed in part and held a limited-purpose hearing to determine the threshold issue of whether the plea deal had an expiration—but declined to appoint separate counsel for the hearing. After the hearing, the court concluded, among other things, that the plea deal had no firm expiration date but instead had been revoked after Buzzard rejected the offer and made a counteroffer the government rejected. Because there was no firm expiration date to communicate to Buzzard, the court declined to hold the requested hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel and denied Buzzard’s motion to appoint substitute counsel for that hearing. On appeal, Buzzard contends that (1) he had a due process right to be present at the hearing; (2) the court erred by not appointing separate counsel for that hearing; and (3) his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to communicate the plea deal’s expiration date. We find these arguments unpersuasive. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and DISMISS Buzzard’s ineffective assistance claim without prejudice. I. Background Buzzard and his two sons conspired to murder and murdered a man who had killed Buzzard’s daughter. A federal grand jury charged Buzzard with a number of crimes, including first-degree murder in Indian Country. Prior to trial, in early 2023, the 2  Appellate Case: 25-5071 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: