Appellate Case: 22-6016 Document: 010110680815 Date Filed: 05/06/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 6, 2022
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 22-6016
(D.C. Nos. 5:19-CV-00975-R &
JAMES CORNELIUS CHRISTIAN, 5:17-CR-00068-R-1)
(W.D. Okla.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
James Cornelius Christian, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a
certificate of appealability (COA) from the district court’s denial of his motion to
reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. The district court construed the motion as
an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion and dismissed it for lack of
jurisdiction. We deny a COA and dismiss this matter.
I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2017, a federal grand jury in the Western District of Oklahoma indicted
Mr. Christian on two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He went to
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-6016 Document: 010110680815 Date Filed: 05/06/2022 Page: 2
trial, primarily arguing an entrapment defense because a government informant had
allegedly plied him with sex and drugs to help her sell at least one of the guns he was
charged with possessing. In a general verdict, the jury acquitted on the first count
but convicted on the second. The district court then sentenced him to 235 months,
which was the low end of the advisory guidelines range, given Mr. Christian’s
criminal history.
On direct appeal, Mr. Christian argued: (i) the jury must have agreed with his
entrapment defense as to the first count, and (ii) the government could never have
developed evidence for the second count but for the actions that supported the first
count, therefore (iii) all evidence supporting the second count should have been
excluded. See United States v. Christian, 754 F. App’x 747, 750 (10th Cir. 2018).
This court rejected the argument because the jury gave a general verdict (so it was
not clear the jury agreed with the entrapment defense) and, regardless, there is no
exclusionary rule for evidence gained through conduct later deemed to be
entrapment. See id.
Mr. Christian then filed a § 2255 motion. He argued that the government
violated various constitutional guarantees by employing a confidential informant
who, in turn, used sex and drugs to persuade him to participate in selling guns. The
district court denied the motion, finding that Mr. Christian raised these arguments, or
could have raised them, on direct appeal. This court denied a COA. See United
States v. Christian, 816 F. App’x 304 (10th Cir. 2020).
2
Appellate Case: 22-6016 Document: 010110680815 Date Filed: 05/06/2022 Page: 3
Finally, in January 2022, Mr. Christian filed a motion captioned “Motion to
Reopen 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Pursuant to Rule 15(c)(2)(b) Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure - Relation Back Doctrine.” R. vol. II at 402 (capitalization normalized).
The first line of that motion further invoked “Rule 60(b)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) and (6),” id.,
and the substance of the motion focused on showing why all forms of Rule 60(b)
relief are appropriate means of vacating his conviction and releasing him, given the
confidential informant’s behavior and the government’s reliance upon her. He also
argued that circumstances in prison unfairly prevented him from filing a reply brief
in support of his original § 2255 motion.
The district court treated Mr. Christian’s argument about his reply brief as a
legitimate Rule 60(b) argument and denied relief on the merits, reasoning he had
waited too long to raise the issue. The district court deemed Mr. Christian’s other
arguments to constitute, in substance, an unauthorized second or successive § 2255
motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). It accordingly dismissed those portions of his
motion for lack of jurisdiction. See In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008)
(per curiam). The district court also denied a COA.
II. ANALYSIS
Mr. Christian’s notice of appeal and COA application do not mention the
district court’s denial of Rule 60(b) relief as to the reply brief he never had a chance
to file. Accordingly, we deem him to have abandoned that issue, see, e.g., Johnson v.
Spencer, 950 F.3d 680, 703 n.7 (10th Cir. 2020), and we focus on the claims the
district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
3
Appellate Case: 22-6016 Document: 010110680815 Date Filed: 05/06/2022 Page: 4
To merit a COA, Mr. Christian must “ma[ke] a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This means he “must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000). And he must make an extra showing in this circumstance because the district
court denied his motion on a procedural ground, namely, lack of jurisdiction. So he
must also show that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district
court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id.
“[W]e look at the relief sought, rather than a pleading’s title or its form, to
determine whether it is a second-or-successive collateral attack on a defendant’s
conviction.” United States v. Baker, 718 F.3d 1204, 1208 (10th Cir. 2013). If a
pleading “asserts or reasserts claims of error in the prisoner’s [federal] conviction,” it
is substantively a § 2255 motion. Id. at 1206. Mr. Christian’s motion unquestionably
fits this description. The district court therefore correctly dismissed Mr. Christian’s
motion for lack of jurisdiction. Jurists of reason could not disagree with the district
court’s procedural disposition, so we may not grant a COA. See Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484.
III. CONCLUSION
We deny Mr. Christian’s application for a COA and dismiss this matter.
Entered for the Court
CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk
4