United States v. Metcalf, No. 10-3319 (10th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Tenth Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Tenth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
In 2007, Petitioner Sandtas Metcalf pled guilty to drug possession charges. The written plea agreement contained a waiver of Petitioner's right to collaterally challenge his prosecution conviction or sentence. Petitioner was sentenced as a career offender under the federal Sentencing Guidelines based on three prior felony convictions. Petitioner sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit so that he could appeal the district court's dismissal of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Tenth Circuit's review of the record found that the district court's dismissal was not "deserving of further proceedings." The Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal and denied Petitioner's request for further appeal.
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT June 13, 2011 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SANDTAS METCALF, No. 10-3319 (D.C. Nos. 2:10-CV-02414-CM and 2:06-CR-20024-CM-1) (D. Kansas) Defendant - Appellant. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. Petitioner, Sandtas Metcalf, seeks a certificate of appealability ( COA ) so he can appeal the district court s dismissal of the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence he brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (providing a movant may not appeal the disposition of a § 2255 motion unless he first obtains a COA). In 2007, Metcalf pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii). The written plea agreement contained a waiver of Metcalf s right to directly or collaterally challenge his prosecution, conviction, or sentence. Metcalf was sentenced as a career offender under USSG § 4B1.1 based on three prior felony convictions two involving controlled substances and one based on a failure-to-report-type escape. See USSG § 4B1.1 (providing a defendant is a career offender if he has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense ). The instant § 2255 motion was filed in the district court on July 22, 2010. Relying on Chambers v. United States, Metcalf argued he was erroneously sentenced as a career offender because his felony conviction for escape does not constitute a crime of violence. 555 U.S. 122 (2009) (holding that failure-to-report escape crimes are not crimes of violence). The Government argued, alternatively, that: (1) Metcalf s § 2255 motion was barred by the waiver, (2) Chambers does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review, and (3) Metcalf s § 2255 motion was untimely because it was filed more than one year after his conviction became final. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) (setting forth a one-year statute of limitations for § 2255 motions). In its order of dismissal, the district court rejected the Government s argument that Chambers does not apply retroactively. See United States v. Shipp, 589 F.3d 1084, 1089-90 (10th Cir. 2009) (holding Chambers involved a new substantive rule and applying that rule retroactively to an appeal involving the Armed Career Criminal Act); see also United States v. Charles, 579 F.3d 1060, 1068-69 (10th Cir. 2009) (applying the reasoning in Chambers to a case involving USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2)). Using the date on which the -2- Supreme Court decided Chambers, the district court nonetheless concluded Metcalf s § 2255 motion was untimely because it was not filed within the oneyear limitations period. The court further concluded Metcalf failed to demonstrate any entitlement to equitable tolling of the one-year period and, accordingly, dismissed his § 2255 motion. 1 In his appellate brief, Metcalf does not address the district court s procedural ruling and does not present any argument that the district court miscalculated the one-year period or erroneously resolved the equitable tolling question. To be entitled to a COA, Metcalf must show that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474, 484-85 (2000) (holding that when a district court dismisses a habeas petition on procedural grounds, a petitioner is entitled to a COA only if he shows both that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether he had stated a valid constitutional claim and debatable whether the district court s procedural ruling was correct). Our review of the record demonstrates that the district court s dismissal of Metcalf s § 2255 motion as untimely is not deserving of further proceedings or subject to a different resolution on appeal. Accordingly, we deny Metcalf s request for a COA and 1 The district court also concluded it was appropriate to enforce the waiver of collateral attack rights contained in Metcalf s plea agreement. -3- dismiss this appeal. Metcalf s request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge -4-
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.
