Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-19-04059/USCOURTS-ca10-19-04059-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney James Palmer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

RODNEY JAMES PALMER, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 19-4059 

(D.C. No. 2:12-CR-00663-RJS-1) 

(D. Utah) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, McHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Rodney James Palmer, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, is back before the 

court seeking review of the district court’s denial of his motion for a writ of coram 

nobis and his subsequent motion to reconsider. We last encountered Palmer when we 

denied his request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) regarding the district 

court’s denial of his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Since 

then, Palmer has filed several other requests for relief in the district court, including 

his coram nobis entreaty. The district court denied these motions, principally on the 

ground that they were unauthorized or otherwise jurisdictionally infirm. We agree 

 * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 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 

February 3, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 19-4059 Document: 010110298766 Date Filed: 02/03/2020 Page: 1
2 

with the district court, and we conclude that separate motions Palmer has filed with 

this court are unauthorized, moot, or without merit. We therefore affirm the district 

court, dismiss Palmer’s requests for relief from his conviction and sentence, and deny 

or dismiss Palmer’s pending appellate motions. 

I 

We have summarized many of the relevant facts in prior opinions, so we 

abbreviate that history. Palmer was indicted by a federal grand jury for producing 

and possessing child pornography. United States v. Palmer, 699 F. App’x 836, 836 

(10th Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (“Palmer II”). He pleaded guilty to the production 

charge. Id. Prior to sentencing, Palmer moved to withdraw his guilty plea. Id. The 

district court denied the motion, and this court affirmed. United States v. Palmer, 

630 F. App’x 795, 795–97 (10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished). The district court 

sentenced Palmer to imprisonment for 210 months. Palmer II, 699 F. App’x at 837. 

Palmer is currently serving that sentence. Record on Appeal (“R.”) at 100. 

Palmer appealed his conviction and sentence. He first filed an unsuccessful 

direct appeal. Palmer II, 699 F. App’x at 837. He then filed an unsuccessful § 2255 

motion. Id. After he did not prevail in the district court on a motion for 

reconsideration, Palmer sought a COA from this court as to the denial of his § 2255 

motion. Id. We denied a COA. Id. at 837–38. Palmer later filed a “Motion To 

Reopen Case,” R. at 46, which the district court construed as a successive § 2255 

motion. Id. at 64–65. Because Palmer had not sought or received permission to file 

Appellate Case: 19-4059 Document: 010110298766 Date Filed: 02/03/2020 Page: 2
3 

a successive motion, the district court dismissed the Motion To Reopen on 

jurisdictional grounds. Id. 

Palmer continued. He filed a “Writ Of Error Coram Nobis” and a “Motion To 

Expedite” this request for coram nobis relief. Id. at 66, 96. Palmer argued in his 

coram nobis motion that the United States lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him 

criminally, and he intimated that he was actually innocent. Id. at 66–93. The district 

court concluded that a prisoner currently in custody cannot challenge his sentence or 

conviction through a writ of coram nobis, and in any event, Palmer’s coram nobis 

application was in reality yet another unauthorized § 2255 motion. Id. at 100–01. 

The district court therefore denied the coram nobis motion, and referenced Palmer’s 

accompanying “Motion To Expedite” in footnotes. Id. at 100–01 & nn.2, 6. After 

Palmer unsuccessfully sought reconsideration of the coram nobis ruling in the district 

court, id. at 116, he filed a notice of appeal. Id. at 118. 

Palmer has filed several motions on appeal as well. One is a “Motion To 

Overrule And Dismiss Criminal Case For Lack Of Jurisdiction,” in which he again 

asserts that the United States had and has no jurisdiction. A second is a set of papers 

in which Palmer seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. A third is a “Motion To 

Expedite Opening Brief And Case,” in which he seeks to speed up the resolution of 

the case on appeal. A fourth is a “Motion For Judgment In Agreement,” in which 

Palmer asserts that the government is estopped or otherwise barred from opposing his 

request for an exonerating judgment. 

Appellate Case: 19-4059 Document: 010110298766 Date Filed: 02/03/2020 Page: 3
4 

II 

The district court properly rejected Palmer’s coram nobis motion. Even if the 

district court had jurisdiction to entertain the motion, a petition for a writ of coram 

nobis is available only to a person “who is no longer ‘in custody’ and therefore 

cannot seek habeas relief[.]” Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342, 345 n.1 (2013) 

(citation omitted). Palmer does not fit that description. But the district court 

correctly determined that jurisdiction was lacking because Palmer’s coram nobis 

petition was a successive § 2255 motion in disguise. A successive § 2255 motion 

“cannot be filed in district court without approval by a panel of this court.” United 

States v. Nelson, 465 F.3d 1145, 1148 (10th Cir. 2006). Without such approval, “the 

district court does not even have jurisdiction to deny the relief sought in the 

pleading.” Id.

That Palmer labeled his filing as a request for a writ of coram nobis (instead of 

as a § 2255 motion) is immaterial. We “are not bound by a pleading’s title; rather, 

we consider its substance.” United States v. Griffith, 928 F.3d 855, 876 (10th Cir. 

2019). A motion under § 2255 “asserts or reasserts claims of error in the prisoner’s 

conviction,” United States v. Baker, 718 F.3d 1204, 1206 (10th Cir. 2013), and one 

such alleged error is the absence of “jurisdiction to impose such sentence.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2255(a). Palmer’s coram nobis motion attempts to make this very point. 

The substance of Palmer’s filing controls, whether we “[c]all it a motion for a new 

trial, arrest of judgment, mandamus, prohibition, coram nobis, coram vobis, audita 

querela, certiorari, capias, habeas corpus, ejectment, quare impedit, bill of review, 

Appellate Case: 19-4059 Document: 010110298766 Date Filed: 02/03/2020 Page: 4
5 

writ of error, or an application for a Get-Out-of-Jail card; the name makes no 

difference.” United States v. Springer, 875 F.3d 968, 974 (10th Cir. 2017) (citation 

omitted). Palmer’s suggestion that the district court did not actually rule on the 

coram nobis motion, or that the district court committed reversible error by issuing an 

opinion before the government filed a response brief, is unsupported. 

Palmer’s case is similar in many respects to United States v. Perryman, 750 F. 

App’x 705 (10th Cir. 2018) (unpublished). In Perryman, the defendant pleaded 

guilty to two counts and was convicted by a jury on several others. Id. at 706. The 

district court denied the defendant’s first § 2255 motion, and we denied the 

defendant’s request for a COA. Id. The defendant then filed an application for a writ 

of coram nobis, which the district court dismissed after deeming it a successive and 

unauthorized § 2255 motion. Id. at 706–07. We denied the defendant’s subsequent 

request for a COA, observing (among other things) that the coram nobis motion was 

filed without permission even though it was effectively a § 2255 motion seeking 

relief from the underlying conviction. Id. at 707–08. 

Nor has Palmer presented a case for innocence. One of the “traditional 

grounds” for excusing a successive habeas petition is “a proper showing of actual 

innocence.” United States v. Miles, 923 F.3d 798, 803–04 (10th Cir. 2019). This 

requires “new evidence [that] shows it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror 

would have convicted the petitioner.” Id. at 804 (citation omitted, brackets in 

original); see also id. (defining “new evidence” as proof that was “excluded or 

unavailable at trial”) (citation omitted). Palmer has not highlighted any evidence that 

Appellate Case: 19-4059 Document: 010110298766 Date Filed: 02/03/2020 Page: 5
6 

compels a finding of innocence, much less “new” evidence that did not exist or was 

inaccessible at the time of trial. 

Palmer’s appellate motions do not provide a basis for relief either. Palmer 

identifies no basis for exercising jurisdiction over his “Motion To Overrule And 

Dismiss Criminal Case For Lack Of Jurisdiction” or his “Motion For Judgment In 

Agreement.” Federal appellate courts have jurisdiction over “final decisions” of 

federal district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Palmer’s motions do not seek review of 

any final decision of the district court. They seek direct relief from this court through 

an order declaring his underlying conviction and sentence invalid. We do not have 

original jurisdiction over habeas petitions, Trevino-Casares v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 

992 F.2d 1068, 1070 (10th Cir. 1993), let alone over stand-alone requests to nullify 

trial court proceedings. And even if we considered Palmer’s motions, they come 

nowhere near establishing substantive grounds for relief. 

That leaves Palmer’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and Palmer’s 

motion to expedite. As to the former, appellate proceedings are now at an end, and 

regardless, Palmer “has failed to show the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous 

argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.” Rolland v. 

Primesource Staffing, LLC, 497 F.3d 1077, 1079 (10th Cir. 2007). As to the latter, 

today’s ruling moots any request to accelerate the case on appeal. There are no 

grounds to grant either motion. 

Appellate Case: 19-4059 Document: 010110298766 Date Filed: 02/03/2020 Page: 6
7 

III 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court, dismiss on 

jurisdictional grounds all of Palmer’s requests for relief from his conviction and 

sentence, and deny all of Palmer’s pending appellate motions with the exception of 

the motion to expedite, which we dismiss as moot. 

Entered for the Court 

Mary Beck Briscoe 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 19-4059 Document: 010110298766 Date Filed: 02/03/2020 Page: 7