Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03153/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03153-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JESSIE AILSWORTH, JR., 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-3153 

(D.C. Nos. 5:13-CV-04081-SAC & 

5:94-CR-40017-SAC-1) 

(D. Kan.)

 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

 

Before LUCERO, GORSUCH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

 

Jessie Ailsworth, Jr., filed a motion in the district court, purportedly under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The district court construed Ailsworth’s motion as an 

unauthorized second or successive motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Proceeding pro se, Ailsworth seeks 

to appeal the district court’s ruling. We deny a certificate of appealability (COA) and 

dismiss this proceeding. 

 

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

November 24, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-3153 Document: 01019529062 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

Background 

 A jury convicted Ailsworth of drug-trafficking and other offenses in 1996. 

The district court sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment and ten years’ 

supervised release. After an unsuccessful appeal to this court, see United States v. 

Ailsworth, 138 F.3d 843 (10th Cir. 1998), Ailsworth filed a § 2255 motion in 1999. 

The district court granted him partial relief and entered an amended judgment in 

2002. The amended judgment reduced Ailsworth’s term of supervised release to five 

years. We denied his application for a COA. 

Since the amended judgment was entered in 2002, Ailsworth has filed several 

motions seeking to reduce his 360-month prison sentence, some of which have been 

construed as unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motions.1

 In his latest 

motion, Ailsworth once again sought the same relief. He styled this motion as filed 

pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) and Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010).2

 

Ailsworth contended that his counsel in his first § 2255 proceeding provided 

 

1

 In particular, this court held that a motion Ailsworth filed in 2014 was an 

unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Ailsworth, 

610 F. App’x 782, 785 n.5 (10th Cir. 2015). 

2

 Under Rule 60(b)(6), “the court may relieve a party or its legal representative 

from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . any other reason that justifies 

relief.” In Magwood, the Supreme Court held that where “there is a new judgment 

intervening between the two habeas petitions, an application challenging the resulting 

new judgment is not ‘second or successive’ at all.” 561 U.S. at 341-42 (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. McGaughy, 670 F.3d 

1149, 1159 n.7 (10th Cir. 2012) (applying Magwood to hold that § 2255 motion filed 

after amended judgment was not second or successive under § 2255(h)). 

Appellate Case: 15-3153 Document: 01019529062 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

ineffective assistance by failing to raise an additional claim in that proceeding. 

Specifically, Ailsworth argued that his counsel should have claimed that a state 

conviction did not qualify as a prior conviction under the Sentencing Guidelines 

because the conduct underlying that conviction was part of the federal drug 

conspiracy charged in this case. Presumably, Ailsworth believes that exclusion of 

this prior conviction from his criminal history would affect the length of his prison 

sentence. Ailsworth asked the district court to set aside its 2002 amended judgment 

and consider this claim. 

Because Ailsworth’s motion sought relief from his federal sentence, the 

district court construed it as a § 2255 motion. The court further held that the 

§ 2255 motion was second or successive and not authorized by this court. It 

therefore dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. 

Discussion 

Ailsworth must obtain a COA to pursue an appeal. See Unite States v. Harper, 

545 F.3d 1230, 1233 (10th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Baker, 718 F.3d 

1204, 1206 (10th Cir. 2013) (holding COA required to appeal dismissal of second or 

successive § 2255 motion purportedly filed under Rule 60(d)(3)). Although we 

liberally construe his pro se application for a COA, see Hall v. Scott, 292 F.3d 1264, 

1266 (10th Cir. 2002), we do not assume the role of Ailsworth’s advocate, see Hall v. 

Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Notably, we do not craft a party’s 

Appellate Case: 15-3153 Document: 01019529062 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

arguments for him. See Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d 1126, 1141 n.13 (10th Cir. 

1999). 

The district court dismissed Ailsworth’s motion for lack of jurisdiction. As 

that ruling rested on procedural grounds, he must show both “that jurists of reason 

would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000) (emphasis added). Because reasonable jurists would not debate the 

correctness of the district court’s procedural ruling, Ailsworth fails to meet the 

second part of this standard, and we therefore need not address the first part. 

Ailsworth asserts that the district court erred in converting his Rule 60(b) 

motion to a successive § 2255 motion. But a post-judgment motion—however it is 

characterized by the movant—is treated as a § 2255 motion if it “asserts or reasserts a 

federal basis for relief” from the movant’s conviction or sentence. In re Lindsey, 

582 F.3d 1173, 1175 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In contrast, 

a proper Rule 60(b) motion either challenges “a procedural ruling of the [§ 2255] 

court which precluded a merits determination” or asserts “a defect in the integrity of 

the [§ 2255] proceeding.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Ailsworth identifies no basis for the district court to treat his motion as a 

proper Rule 60(b) motion. He did not challenge any procedural ruling by the district 

court precluding a merits review of any of his § 2255 claims. Nor did he explicitly 

Appellate Case: 15-3153 Document: 01019529062 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 4 
- 5 - 

claim any defect in the integrity of his § 2255 proceedings. Rather, he argued that 

his counsel was ineffective in failing to raise an additional issue in those proceedings. 

But “an attack based on the movant’s own conduct, or his habeas counsel’s 

omissions, . . . ordinarily does not go to the integrity of the proceedings, but in effect 

asks for a second chance to have the merits determined favorably.” Gonzalez v. 

Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 n.5 (2005); see also United States v. Lee, 792 F.3d 1021, 

1023-25 (8th Cir. 2015) (holding claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in § 2255 

proceedings did not amount to a procedural defect in the integrity of those 

proceedings); In re Coleman, 768 F.3d 367, 371-72 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) 

(reaching same holding in habeas proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254), cert. denied, 

Coleman v. Stephens, 135 S. Ct. 41 (2014); Franqui v. Florida, 638 F.3d 1368, 

1372-74 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding counsel’s omission of a claim from a federal 

habeas petition was not a defect in the integrity of the habeas proceedings). 

Conclusion 

Ailsworth has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would debate the 

correctness of the district court’s ruling that, because his motion sought § 2255 relief, 

it was not a proper Rule 60(b) motion. And he does not present any argument 

challenging the court’s further determination that his § 2255 motion was second or 

successive and unauthorized, and therefore subject to dismissal for lack of 

Appellate Case: 15-3153 Document: 01019529062 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 5 
- 6 - 

jurisdiction. Accordingly, we deny Ailsworth’s application for a COA and dismiss 

the appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 15-3153 Document: 01019529062 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 6