A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he 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 th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he 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 . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### O c t ob e r17,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. D A V I D RA Y G A D D I S,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 6390 ( D. C. No . 0 0 - CV- 3 8 7 - C) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , HOLL OW AY , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es.

T hi s cas e i s befor e us on defe ndant - appel l antD avi d G addi s ’ appea l fr om t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on forw r i tof err orcor am nobi s and the cour t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r econs i dert hator der . M r . G addi s w as convi ct ed b ya ju ryo f

n in e c rim in a l co u n ts re late d to h is a c tiv iti e s in d e f ra u d in g h isT he ful l fac t s r egar di ng M r . G addi s ’ cas e ar e s etfor th i n the 1 above- r efe r ence d or der s and j udgm ent s of thi s courtand nee d notbe r epea t ed her e. -2- bus i nes s part nerSear s , R oebuck a nd C om pany , bys ubm i t t i ng phonyi nvoi ces for in sta llatio n se rv ice s th a t w e re n e v e r p e rfo rm e d . M r. G a d d is a p p e a led h is c o n v ic tio n a n d , w h e n h is c o n v ic tio n w a s u p h e ld b ya n o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t, s ee Un itedS ta tes v . G a dd is , 198 F. 3d 259 ( t abl e) , N o. 98- 6273, 1999 W L 824416 ( 10t h C i r . O ct . 15, 1999) , al s o fi l ed a mot i on under28 U . S. C . § 2255. H i s § 2255 m o tio n w a s d e n ie d a s w a s h is a p p e a l f ro m th a t d e n ia l, s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. G a dd is , 1 2 F . A p p ’x 7 3 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). 1 Fol l ow i ng hi s r el eas e fr om pr i s on, M r . G addi s fi l ed hi s m ot i on fora w r i tof err orcor am nobi s . I n hi s m ot i on M r . G addi s ar gued thathe s houl d be gr ant ed re lief b e c a u se h is tria l law y e r h a d b e e n in e ffe c tiv e fo r n o t ar g u in g th a t h is contr actual agr eementw i t h Sear s al l ow ed hi m t o char ge fori ns t al l at i ons t hathe had noty etcompl et ed. H e furt herar gued thatt hi s i neffect i venes s w as pr oven by a mem or andum “pr epar ed bya l aw fi r m w hi ch had be en r et ai ned bySear s ” that “s t r ongl yt ended t o excul pat e hi m . ” A ppel l ant ’ s A ppendi x at31. T h e d istric t co u rt d e n ied h is m o tio n o n tw o g ro u n d s: (1 ) th a t M r. G a d d is h a d n o t sh o w n d u e d ili g e n c e in fili n g h is m o tio n fo r a w rit o f e rro r c o ra m n o b is i n thatt he o nlyreas on he g ave for w ai t i ng al m ostt w o y ears aft er hi s r el ease f ro m p riso n to file th e m o tio n w a s th a t h e h a d b e e n u n a b le to fin d a n a tto rn e yto re p re se n t h im , an d (2 ) th a t h e h a d a rg u e d th a t th e re w a s in su fficie n t ev id e n c e to-3-

s uppor thi s convi ct i on on di r ectappea l and i n hi s § 2255 pr ocee di ngs and that coram no bis rel i ef i s not avai l able t o rel i t i gate i ssues. T he d i stri ctcou rtal so deni ed M r . G addi s ’ r eques tforan evi dent i aryhear i ng on hi s cl ai m s and su b se q u e n tlyd e n ied h is m o tio n to re c o n sid e r w h ich w a s in su b sta n c e a m o tio n to alt er o r am en d the ju d g m en t un d er F ed . R . C iv. P. 59 (e). O n a p p e a l, M r. G a d d is a rg u e s th a t itw a s n o t a fa ilu re o f d u e d ili g e n c e to w a it tw o y e a rs to file h is m o tio n b e c a u se h e sh o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n e x p e c ted to file t he mot i on pr o s e. H e furt heras s er t s thatw hi l e i tw as pr evi ous l yar gued thathe di d nothave the nec es s aryi nt entt o comm i tthe cr i m e forw hi ch he w as char ged, hi s m ot i on forcor am nobi s r el i ef s oughtt o ar gue thatthe i nvoi ces i n ques t i on w er e pr operundert he t erm s of the contr actand, ther efor e, no cr i m e w as c o m m itt e d . H e a lso a rg u e s th a t itw a s th e re fo re e rro r fo r th e d istric t co u rt n o t to have he l d an evi dent i aryhear i ng. O n a p p e a l, w e re v ie w fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r c le a r e rr o r, B lant on v. Uni t ed Stat es , 9 4 F .3 d 2 2 7 , 2 3 0 (6 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ), a n d q u e s tio n s o f la w d e n o v o , Uni t ed Stat es v. Mandani ci , 205 F. 3d 519, 524 ( 2d C i r . 2000) . W e r evi ew the di s tr i ct cour t ’ s ul t i m at e dec i s i on t o denythe w r i tof err orcor am nobi s foran abus e of d is c re tio n . Id . K eepi ng t he above s t andar ds for emosti n m i nd, w e have car eful l yr evi ew ed the p arti es’ b ri efs an d ap p en d ices. F o r th e re aso n s set fo rth in the d istri ct co u rt ’s O ctob er 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 , M em o ran d u m O p inion an d O rde r an d the d istri ct co u rt ’s-4-

N ovember3, 2005, M emora ndum O pi ni on and O r der , w e A FFIRM the deni al of M r. G ad d is’ m o ti o n fo r w ri t of erro r co ram n o b is an d h is m o ti o n to rec o n side r.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

W il li am J. H o ll o w ay , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge