A ft erexami ni ng the br i ef a nd appel l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is ther efor e or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly2,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT BE NNI E WRE N B OL T ON,

P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, N o. 07- 5037 v. ( N . D . O kl ahoma) E L RE NO F E DE RA L CO RR E CT I ONAL I NS T I T UT I ON; AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE S T AT E OF OKL AHOMA,

R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. (D . C . N o. 05 -C V -394-T C K -SA J)

OR DER * B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. B enni e W . B ol t on, an i nm at e i n fede r al cus t ody , s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i ty( C O A ) t o appea l the deni al bythe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor the N or thern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma of hi s appl i cat i on forr el i ef u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2254 . See 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( b) ( r equi r i ng C O A t o appea l deni al of § 2254-2-

appl i cat i on) . T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed the appl i cat i on as unt i m el yunder 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d )(1 ). B u t b e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt h a d n o ju risd ictio n to cons i derM r . B ol t on’ s appl i cat i on, w e vac at e the j udgm entbel ow and r emand w i th i ns truct i ons t o di s m i s s the appl i cat i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce. M r . Bo l t o n ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n s t a t e d th a th e h a d p l e a d e d g u i l tyi n Ok l a h o ma sta te c o u rt to fo u r a rm e d ro b b e rie s; th a t h is c o n v ictio n s w e re n o t d ire c tly a p p e a led ; th a t h e h a d re p e a ted lyso u g h t p o stc o n v ictio n re lief; an d th a t in 1 9 7 8 h is s e n te n c e h a d b e e n re d u c e d f ro m fo u r 4 5 -ye a r s e n te n c e s to fo u r 1 5 -ye a r s e n te n c e s . T he ap pli cat i on and supp ort i ng bri ef sou gh tt o ch al l eng e the v al i dityof these con vict i on s on the groun ds that he had no tvo l un t ari l yenter ed h i s guil typleas , th a t h e w a s c o n v icte d in v io latio n o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t b e c a u se o f h is s t atus as a mi nor , thathe w as deni ed effec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , thats ever al j ud ges i n h i s post con vict i on st at e proceed i ng s should hav e recused them sel ves, an d that h is plead ing s in tho se p roc ee d ing s sh o u ld h av e b ee n interpre ted m o re li b era ll y . T h ese co n v ict ion s w ere ev iden tl yu sed to en h an ce h is sen tenc e fo r a 1 9 8 8 fe d era l con v ict ion u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ). W hat everthe mer i t s of M r . B ol t on’ s cl ai m s , he ca nnots eek r el i ef unde r § 2254. T he r ecor d cl ear l yi ndi cat es thathe l ong ago compl et ed s ervi ce of the c h a llen g e d sta te c o n v ictio n s. S e c tio n 2 2 5 4 is a v a ilab le o n lyto “ a p e rso n in c u s to d yp u rs u a n t to th e ju d g m e n t o f a S ta te c o u rt .” § 2254( a) . I ti s notenough thatthe s t at e convi ct i on m ayhave a ffe ct ed a feder al s ent ence curr ent l ybei ng-3-

se rv e d . A s w e h a v e sta ted : “A p riso n e r w h o h a s c o m p lete lyse rv e d h is s tate s ent ence i s notent i t l ed t o habea s r el i ef unde r§ 2254 even i f the s t at e s ent ence affe cted the c alcu lat ion o f h is fed era l sen tenc e. A cc o rdin g ly , the d istri ct co u rt la c k e d ju ri s d ic tio n to e n te rt a in [ th e a p p lic a n t’ s ] § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n .” B r ow n v. Warden , Sp ri ng

f i eld Med. C tr. f

or Fed. P risoners , 3 1 5 F . 3 d 1 2 6 8 , 1 2 7 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). E ven i f w e w er e t o i nt erpr etM r . B ol t on’ s appl i cat i on as a mot i on forr el i ef u n d e r§ 2 2 5 5 , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r two u l d h a v e h a d n o j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n i t . As the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed, M r . B ol t on had pr evi ous l yfi l ed a § 2255 mot i on chall eng i ng the fe deral sent ence. Th erefore, this m oti on w ou l d b e barr ed as a

“ s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e ” p e titio n . See § 2255 ¶ 8. A “s econd ors ucce s s i ve” § 2255 m ot i on m us tbe ce r t i fi ed byan appe l l at e pane l befor e i tcan be addr es s ed b ya d is tr ic t c o u rt . See G onz al ezv. C r os by , 5 4 5 U .S . 5 2 4 , 5 2 9

– 3 1 (2 0 0 5 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Nels on , 465 F. 3d 1145, 1147 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . W e coul d cons true M r . B ol t on’ s pl eadi ng i n thi s courtas an i m pl i ed appl i cat i on t o fi l e a s ucce s s i ve § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt , s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. G al l egos , 142 F. 3d 1211, 1 2 1 2 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) ; b u twe c a n c e r t i f ya s u c c e s s i v e mo t i o n o n l yi f i t s c l a i ms r el yon ei ther“( 1) new l ydi s cover ed evi dence that , i f pr oven and vi ew ed i n l i ght of the evi dence as a w hol e, w oul d be s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence thatno r eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw oul d have found the movant g u iltyo f

th e o ffe n se ; o r (2 ) a n e w ru le o f c o n stitu tio n a l law , m a d e re tro a c tiv e to-4-

c a se s o n c o llate ra l re v iew b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt, th a t w a s p re v io u sly u n a v a ilab le.” § 2 2 5 5 ¶ 8 ; see also C ol em an v. Uni t ed Stat es , 106 F. 3d 339, 340 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). M r. B o lto n h a s m a d e n o a rg u m e n t an d p ro v id e d n o fa c ts to su g g e st th a t h e m e e ts e ith e r re q u ire m e n t. T h e re fo re , w e re f u se to c e rtify his pl eadi ng as a pr opers ucce s s i ve mot i on. A c c o rd in g ly , w e V A C A T E th e ju d g m e n t b e lo w a n d R E M A N D w ith i ns truct i ons t o di s m i s s M r . B ol t on’ s appl i cat i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge