Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02105/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02105-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

BILLY R. MELOT, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-2105 

(D.C. Nos. 2:09-CR-02258-MCA-1 AND 

2:14-CV-00865-MCA-SMV) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, 

DISMISSING APPEAL AND REQUIRING PAYMENT OF FEES 

Before GORSUCH, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

Billy R. Melot, proceeding pro se, wants to appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion. His request for a certificate of appealability (COA) was denied by the 

district judge, prompting him to reapply here. We too deny a COA. 

 The parties are familiar with the facts and we need not repeat them here. Suffice 

to say, Melot was convicted by a jury of various tax offenses and making false statements 

to the United States Department of Agriculture. The district judge allowed him a twolevel reduction in his base offense level for acceptance of responsibility, see USSG § 

3E1.1, resulting in an advisory guideline range of 210-262 months imprisonment. In 

addition, the judge varied downward significantly, sentencing him to 60 months 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

October 19, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-2105 Document: 01019508953 Date Filed: 10/19/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

imprisonment. She also ordered him to pay over $18 million in restitution. Melot 

appealed from his conviction and sentence; the government cross-appealed from the 

acceptance of responsibility reduction. We affirmed his conviction but reversed the 

reduction because Melot had “steadfastly maintained he did not commit the crimes 

charged because he did not act willfully.” United States v. Melot, 732 F.3d 1234, 1244-

45 (10th Cir. 2013). On remand, the judge sentenced him to 168 months imprisonment. 

He did not appeal from the new sentence and for good reason—his guilt is nearly 

palpable. 

 He filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, alleging various ineffective assistance 

of counsel claims and a host of constitutional arguments concerning all aspects of his 

criminal proceedings.1

 In a thorough and cogent order, the magistrate judge decided each 

claim was meritless and recommended the motion be denied. After de novo review of 

Melot’s objections to the recommendation, the district judge adopted it in its entirety. 

 A COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to our review of a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). It requires “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such a 

showing, Melot 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 

 

1

 Due to a misunderstanding, the attorney who perfected Melot’s direct appeal 

prepared the § 2255 motion believing he would be compensated under the Criminal 

Justice Act. When that misunderstanding was corrected and Melot’s request for 

appointment of counsel was denied, Melot continued his § 2255 proceedings pro se. We 

have liberally construed his pro se filings. See United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 

975 (10th Cir. 2009). 

Appellate Case: 15-2105 Document: 01019508953 Date Filed: 10/19/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotations omitted). 

 Melot reiterates all or nearly all the arguments he made in the district court, 

without making much effort to show how the judge erred. Hoping for a different result, it 

appears he just wants a second opinion. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district judge’s order addressing his 

objections to the report and recommendation, and Melot’s appellate filings. We see no 

error and no reason to think jurists of reason could reasonably debate the correctness of 

the result reached. We DENY a COA and DISMISS this matter. Melot’s request to 

proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT. The relevant statute, 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 (a), does not permit litigants to avoid payment of fees; only prepayment of 

fees may be excused. Since we have reached the merits of this matter, prepayment of 

fees is no longer an issue. Melot is, nevertheless, required to pay all filing and docketing 

fees. Payment must be made to the Clerk of the District Court. 

Entered by the Court: 

Terrence L. O’Brien 

United States Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-2105 Document: 01019508953 Date Filed: 10/19/2015 Page: 3