a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in federal court arguing that his sentencing enhancement was unconstitutionally imposed because he was found guilty of having obstructed justice by the sentencing judge rather than by a jury. The district court denied this petition, finding it was time-barred. Chee filed a motion with the district court seeking reconsideration or, in the alternative, to appeal the denial of his petition. The district court denied Chee’s motion for reconsideration, treating the motion instead as an appeal of its denial of his § 2255 petition. Because the district court did not issue Chee a COA or state why a certificate should not issue, we deem that Chee’s constructive request for a COA was denied. See United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187, 1193 n. 3 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Our granting of a COA is a jurisdictional
holding that the district court acted within its discretion when it denied plaintiffs request for counsel recognizing that while defendants may freely amend their notice of removal within thirty days of service they may not add new grounds for removal after the thirty day period has expired holding court lost jurisdiction to enter its order after thirty days and the motion was denied by operation of law holding that the laterserved defendants  had thirty days from the date of service on them to file a notice of removal with the unanimous consent of their codefendants even though the firstserved codefendants did not file a notice of removal within thirty days of service holding that a coa is deemed denied if the district court does not address its issuance within thirty days