Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-04115/USCOURTS-ca10-07-04115-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian William Aderhold
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN WILLIAM ADERHOLD,

Petitioner ! Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent ! Appellee.

No. 07-4115

 (D.C. No. 2:07-CV-166-PGC)

ORDER

Filed September 19, 2007

Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

The petitioner appeals the conversion of his petition filed in the district court

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and the subsequent denial of

relief. Because we determine that the petitioner has not made a “substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

The petitioner pled guilty to the use of interstate facilities to transmit

information about a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2425, for which he was

sentenced to 46 months incarceration. Judgment was entered on February 2, 2006.

The petitioner did not appeal.

Appellate Case: 07-4115 Document: 010134907 Date Filed: 09/19/2007 Page: 1
2

On March 20, 2007, the petitioner filed a pleading in the district court entitled

“Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Jus Legitium, Jus Quaesitmum Pursuant to [28

USC § 2241],” in which he argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because

his actions did not substantially affect interstate commerce under United States v.

Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 567-68 (1995). He also argued that the prosecution committed

fraud on the court.

The district court determined that because the petitioner was challenging the

court’s jurisdiction to impose sentence, the claims fell squarely within the scope of

§ 2255. The court therefore construed the petition as a motion filed under § 2255,

and denied relief because the motion was filed beyond the one-year limitations

period. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 4.

In Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003), the Supreme Court held that

a district court may not recharacterize a pro se litigant’s pleading as a first § 2255

motion unless the court notifies the litigant that it “intends to recharacterize the

pleading, warn the litigant that this recharacterization means that any subsequent §

2255 motion will be subject to the restrictions on ‘second or successive’ motions,

and provide the litigant an opportunity to withdraw the motion or to amend it so that

it contains all the § 2255 motions he believes he has. If the court fails to do so, the

motion cannot be considered to have become a § 2255 motion for purposes of

applying to later motions the law’s ‘second or successive’ restrictions.” 540 U.S. at

383. See also United States v. Martin, 357 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (10th Cir. 2004)

Appellate Case: 07-4115 Document: 010134907 Date Filed: 09/19/2007 Page: 2
3

(the holding in Castro affirms what “has been the law in our circuit for several

years.”) (citing to United States v. Kelly, 235 F.3d 1238, 1242 (10th Cir. 2000)).

However, because the petitioner’s pleading was filed after the statute of

limitations had run, the district court’s error was harmless. “Notification of the

recharacterization would not change the fact that the limitation period for filing a §

2255 motion had long since passed.” Martin, 357 F.3d at 1220. Accordingly,

“[s]ince any § 2255 motion filed by [the petitioner] in the instant case would be time

barred, the district court’s failure to notify [the petitioner] of the recharacterization

was harmless.” Id.

We DENY a Certificate of Appealability and permission to appeal in forma

pauperis. All other pending motions are also DENIED.

This appeal is DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Ellen Rich Reiter

Deputy Clerk/Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 07-4115 Document: 010134907 Date Filed: 09/19/2007 Page: 3