F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
April 17, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 05-1425
v. (D.C. No. 94-CR-327 LTB)
STEPHEN FUTRELL, (D. Colo.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER
Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, pleaded guilty to one count
of distribution of more than fifty grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to a term of 256 months’ imprisonment on
July 25, 1995. Appellant filed a direct appeal, contending that he was not a
career offender. United States v. Futrell, No. 95-1320,1996 WL 200602, at *1-*2
(10th Cir. Apr. 25, 1996). We rejected Appellant’s argument. Id.
Nearly nine years later, Appellant filed a motion contesting the validity of
his sentence, arguing that the Government’s failure to file an information
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) rendered his conviction void. The district court
construed Appellant’s motion as one for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Order, 1
(D. Colo. Feb.16, 2005). The district court explained:
[A] “district court may not recharacterize a pro se litigant’s motion as a
request for relief under § 2255–unless the [c]ourt first warns the pro se
litigant about the consequences of the recharacterization, thereby giving the
litigant an opportunity to contest the recharacterization, or to withdraw or
amend the motion.”
Id. at 2 (quoting Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003)).
Consequently, the district court reminded Appellant that he would have twenty
days from the date of the order to contest the recharacterization of his motion
under § 2255. Appellant did file a timely response to the court’s motion on
February 23, 2005, but did not contest the district court’s classification of his
motion under § 2255.
On July 19, 2005, the district court issued an order denying Appellant’s
motion because under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28
U.S.C. § 2255, Appellant must bring an appeal within one year of the date that his
conviction became final. See Order, 1 (D. Colo.). Appellant’s conviction
became final ninety days after our April 25, 1996, Order and Judgment.
Appellant filed this motion on January 12, 2005, outside the time limitations
imposed by AEDPA. Therefore, the district court held that Appellant’s motion
was “barred by the provisions of that Act.” Id.
Since we agree with the district court’s construal of Appellant’s motion as
coming under § 2255, we review for whether to grant him a certificate of
-2-
appealability. The issues he raises on appeal are identical to those brought before
the district court.
To grant a certificate of appealability, Appellant must make a “substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (1994).
In order to meet this burden, Appellant must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists
could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have
been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000) (quotation omitted).
We have carefully reviewed the briefs of Appellant and Appellee, the
district court’s disposition, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the
record on appeal, or Appellant’s filing raises an issue which meets our standard
for the grant of a certificate of appealability. For substantially the same reasons
set forth by the district court in its orders of February 16, 2005, and July 19,
2005, we cannot say “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that
matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner.”
Id.
We DENY Appellant a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the
appeal.
Entered for the Court
-3-
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-4-