Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-10-06075/USCOURTS-ca10-10-06075-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vernon Jeffrey Nolan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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

July 20, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 10-6075

VERNON JEFFREY NOLAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

(D.C. No. 5:08-CR-00064-HE-1)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, TACHA, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is, therefore,

submitted without oral argument. 

 Defendant-Appellant Vernon Jeffrey Nolan, appearing pro se, appeals the district

court’s denial of his “Motion for Clarification of Referral.” Exercising jurisdiction

Appellate Case: 10-6075 Document: 01018459874 Date Filed: 07/20/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM.

I

In April of 2008, Nolan pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a

firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to 180

months’ imprisonment pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). 

We affirmed Nolan’s sentence on direct appeal. See United States v. Nolan, 342 F.

App’x 368 (10th Cir. 2009). Nolan then filed a motion seeking to have his sentence

modified pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court denied this motion and,

once again, we affirmed on appeal. See United States v. Nolan, 359 F. App’x 941 (10th

Cir. 2010).

Nolan subsequently filed a pleading in the district court which was captioned as an

“Official, Actual, Constructive and Express Notice of Unclean Hands and Fraud, to Any

and All Agents, Officers, Employees, and Attorneys of Local, State, of Federal

Governments.” ROA, Vol. 1, at 258. In response, the district court issued an order

striking Nolan’s pleading, noting that it “d[id] not assert, or state the basis for, any claim

and d[id] not seek any type of relief . . . .” Id. at 275.

Nolan then filed another pleading in the district court captioned as a “Motion for

Clarification of Referral, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).” Id. at 276. In this motion, Nolan

outlined various aspects of the power of a United States Magistrate Judge as well as

various doctrines of administrative law. Nolan concluded by requesting that the district

court “[r]elease him from custody on the merits of the arguments made within his

Appellate Case: 10-6075 Document: 01018459874 Date Filed: 07/20/2010 Page: 2 
-3-

motion[] . . . .” Id. at 280. 

In response, the district court entered an order which stated as follows:

[Nolan] has filed a motion in which he requests clarification of a referral to a

magistrate judge. As the court did not refer any matters in this case to a

magistrate judge, the motion [] is DENIED.

Id. at 282 (emphasis in original). Nolan then filed this timely appeal, purportedly seeking

to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his motion. 

Because Nolan appears pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally. Clark v.

Oklahoma, 468 F.3d 711, 713 n.1 (10th Cir. 2006). Even doing so, however, it is clear

that the district court did not err in denying the “Motion for Clarification of Referral.” 

Simply put, Nolan’s pleading failed to state a request for legally cognizable relief. And,

to the extent that Nolan’s appellate briefing can be construed to request potentially

cognizable relief, “we find no reason to deviate from the general rule that we do not

address arguments presented for the first time on appeal.” United States v. Mora, 293

F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2002).

II

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Mary Beck Briscoe

Chief Judge

Appellate Case: 10-6075 Document: 01018459874 Date Filed: 07/20/2010 Page: 3