United States vs. Rogers, No. 06-1267 (10th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 20, 2006 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER IC A , P l a in t i f f - A p p e ll e e , No. 06-1267 (D .C . N o. 84-C R -337-C A B ) ( D . C o lo .) v. GERALDO LEO ROGERS, D efendant-A ppellant. ORDER AND JUDGM ENT* B e f o r e B R I S C O E , L U C E R O , a n d M U R P H Y , C i r c u it J u d g e s . A f te r e x a m i n i n g t h e b r i e f s a n d a p p e l l a te r e c o rd , t h i s p a n e l h a s d e te r m i n e d th a t o r a l a r g u m e n t w o u l d n o t m a te r i a ll y a s s i s t i n t h e d e t e r m i n a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; 1 0 t h C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 ( G ) . T h e re f o re , th e c a s e is o r d e r e d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. T h e d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s t h e d is t r i c t c o u r t s d e n ia l o f h is p o s t - j u d g m e n t motion in w hich he sought relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and the A ll * T h i s o r d e r a n d ju d g m e n t i s n o t b i n d i n g p r e c e d e n t, e x c e p t u n d e r t h e d o c tr i n e s o f la w o f th e c a s e , r e s j u d i c a ta , a n d c o ll a te r a l e s t o p p e l. I t m a y be cited, how ever, for its persuasive value consistent w ith Fed. R. A pp. P. 3 2 . 1 ( e f f . D e c . 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 ( e f f . J a n . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ) . W r i t s A c t f r o m h i s c r i m i n a l c o n v ic ti o n a n d s e n te n c e . W e v a c a te th e o r d e r for lack of jurisdiction, construe the defendant s notice of appeal, motion to p r o c e e d i n f o r m a p a u p e r i s , a n d a p p e l l a te b r i e f a s a n im p l i e d a p p li c a ti o n f o r a u th o r i z a ti o n t o f il e a n o th e r 2 8 U .S . C . § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n , a n d d e n y a u th o r i z a ti o n . T h e d e f e n d a n t s o r i g i n a l § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n w a s d e n ie d b y t h e d is t r i c t c o u r t i n 1 9 9 5 . O n a p p e a l, th is c o u r t a f f ir m e d . U n i te d S t a t e s v . R o g e r s , N o . 05-1519, 1997 W L 543365 (10th C ir. Sept. 3, 1997) (unpublished). In 1998, t h e d e f e n d a n t s o u g h t a u th o r i z a ti o n t o f ile a n o th e r § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n . T h a t r e q u e s t w a s d e n ie d . R o g e r s v . U n i t e d S ta t e s , N o . 9 8 - 5 2 5 ( 1 0 th C i r . O c t. 6 , 1 9 9 8 ) ( u n p u b l i s h e d ) . I n 2 0 0 2 , t h e d e f e n d a n t f il e d a p le a d in g e n ti t l e d P e ti t i o n f o r W r i t o f C o r a m N o b i s , o r i n t h e A l t e r n a ti v e , P e t i t i o n f o r W r i t o f H a b e a s C o r p u s P u r s u a n t t o T i t l e 2 8 U S C S e c ti o n 2 2 4 1 ( c ) ( 3 ) f o r V i o l a ti o n s o f th e C o n s t i t u t i o n , L a w a n d T r e a ti e s o f th e U n i t e d S t a te s in t h e d is t r i c t c o u r t . T h a t c o u r t t r a n s f e rr e d th e m a t t e r t o t h i s c o u r t a s a n u n a u th o r i z e d s u c c e s s i v e § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n . T h i s c o u r t d e n ie d a u th o r i z a ti o n . R o g e r s v . U n i t e d S ta t e s , N o . 0 2 -1 4 1 6 (1 0 th C ir . D e c . 5 , 2 0 0 2 ) ( u n p u b lis h e d ) . T h e d e f e n d a n t s u b s e q u e n tl y f il e d a p le a d in g e n ti t l e d R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) M o t i o n t o V o i d J u d g m e n t o f C o n v i c ti o n f o r L a c k o f S u b j e c t M a tt e r J u r i s d i c ti o n , o r i n t h e a lt e r n a ti v e , P u r s u a n t S u p r e m e C o u r t i n G o n z a le s v . Crosby (2005) to G rant Habeas R elief D ue to Substantive Change to A p p e ll a te R u l e 1 6 ( e ) . T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o t i o n a s a n u n a u th o r i z e d s u c c e s s i v e § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n . T h e d e f e n d a n t t h e n f il e d a M o t i o n f o r P l a in t i f f to S h o w C a u s e W h y T h i s C o u r t D i d N o t L a c k S u b je c t M a tt e r J u r i s d i c t i o n in th is In s ta n t M a tte r a n d a m o tio n to a m e n d th a t p le a d in g . T h e d is t r i c t c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o t i o n a s f r i v o l o u s . T h e d e f e n d a n t t h e n f il e d this appeal. O n a p p e a l , t h e d e f e n d a n t c h a ll e n g e s h i s c o n v ic ti o n s , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e r e is n o f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c ti o n o v e r t h e a c t s h e is a ll e g e d to h a v e c o m m i t t e d a n d th e r e f o re th e tr i a l c o u r t l a c k e d s u b je c t m a tt e r j u r i s d i c ti o n . T h e r e li e f s o u g h t b y th e d e f e n d a n t m a y o n ly b e o b ta in e d th r o u g h § 2 2 5 5 . S e e 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 ( A p r i s o n e r i n c u s t o d y u n d e r s e n te n c e o f a c o u r t e s t a b li s h e d b y A c t o f C o n g re s s c la im in g th e r i g h t to b e r e le a s e d u p o n th e g r o u n d th a t . . . t h e c o u rt w a s w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c ti o n t o i m p o s e s u c h s e n te n c e ... m a y m o v e th e c o u r t w h i c h im p o s e d th e s e n te n c e t o v a c a t e , s e t a s i d e o r c o r r e c t t h e sentence. ). B e c a u s e th e d e f e n d a n t h a s a lr e a d y f il e d a § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n a n d a j u d g m e n t h a s b e e n e n t e r e d in t h a t p r o c e e d i n g , h e m u s t o b t a in a u th o r i z a ti o n f r o m t h i s c o u rt b e f o re h e m a y f ile a n o th e r s u c h m o tio n in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . S e e U n i t e d S ta t e s v . N e ls o n , 4 6 5 F .3 d 1 1 4 5 , 1 1 4 7 ( 1 0 t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( a pleading asserting a new ground for relief is advancing a new claim and is t h e r e f o r e t r e a t e d a s a s u c c e s s i v e § 2 2 5 5 m o t io n u n d e r G o n z a l e z v . C r o s b y , 545 U .S. 524 (2005)). A c c o rd i n g l y, t h e d is t r i c t c o u r t la c k e d j u r i s d i c ti o n o v e r t h e d e f e n d a n t s p o s t - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s , a n d th e d is t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r s m u s t b e v a c a t e d . S e e N e l s o n , 4 6 5 F . 3 d a t 1 1 4 6 . H o w e v e r, w e w i l l c o n s t r u e th e d e f e n d a n t s n o t ic e o f a p p e a l a n d t h e p l e a d i n g s h e f i le d i n th i s c o u r t a s a r e q u e s t f o r t h e re q u ir e d a u th o ri z a tio n . I d . a t 1 1 4 8 . W e h a v e t h o r o u g h l y r e v ie w e d th e m a t t e r a n d c o n c l u d e th a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s f a il e d to m a k e th e p r i m a f a c ie s h o w i n g r e q u ir e d b y § 2 2 5 5 a s a m e n d e d b y t h e A n t i te r r o r i s m a n d E f f e c t i v e D e a t h P e n a l t y A c t . H i s c o n te n ti o n s a r e n o t b a s e d o n n e w l y d i s c o v e re d e v id e n c e t h a t, if p r o v e n a n d v i e w e d i n l i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e a s a w h o l e , w o u l d b e s u f f i c ie n t to e s t a b l is h b y c le a r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e t h a t n o r e a s o n a b le f a c t f in d e r w o u l d h a v e found [him ] guilty of the offense or on a new rule of constitutional law , m a d e re tr o a c ti v e to c a s e s o n c o ll a te r a l r e v ie w b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t , t h a t w a s p r e v io u s ly u n a v a ila b le . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . T h e m o t io n t o p r o c e e d i n f o r m a p a u p e r i s is g r a n t e d , th e d i s tr ic t c o u r t o r d e r is V A C A T E D , a n d t h e i m p l i e d a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a u t h o r i z a t i o n t o f i l e a n o t h e r § 2 2 5 5 m o t io n i s D E N I E D . T h e m a n d a t e s h a ll i s s u e f o r t h w i t h . E n t e r e d f o r th e C o u r t Per C uriam

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.