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 o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s 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 . 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 

### F e b r u ary28,2007 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. WI L L I AM R. S AT T E RF I E L D,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 5174 ( D . C . N os . 05- C V - 373- H D C and 0 4 - CR- 1 2 3 - HDC) (N .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , O’ BRI EN , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ppel l antW i l l i am R . Sat t er fi el d appea l s fr om t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of h is M o tio n to V a c a te , S e t A s id e , o r C o rr e c t S e n te n c e u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . M r . Sat t er fi el d pl ed gui l t yi n t he under l y i ng cas e t o tw o count s of odom et er t amper i ng and one c ountof cons pi r acyand s i gned a pl ea a gr eementt hati ncl uded a w a iv e r o f

h is rig h t to a p p e a l, i n c lu d in g h is rig h t to c o llate ra llya ttac k h isM r . Sat t er fi el d admi t t ed i n hi s pl ea a gr eementt hathe “know i ngl yand 1 w i l l ful l ypart i ci pat ed i n a cons pi r acyw i th otheri ndi vi dual s t o r es et , al t er , or di s connec tand r epl ace odom et er s i n m or e than 424 us ed mot orvehi cl es ” mostof w hi ch “w er e ‘ hi gh end’ vehi cl es . ” R . , D oc. 9 at8. -2- c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e . M r. S a tterfield d id n o t file a d ire c t ap p e a l b u t filed h is 1 § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n in w h ich h e a lleg e d (1 ) th a t th e w a iv e r o f a p p e a l rig h ts s ig n e d in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is p lea a g re e m e n t w a s n o t en ter e d in to k n o w in g lyo r v o lu n tar ily as a r es ul tof i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , ( 2) t hatt he di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed t he pr e- s ent ence r epor tw i t houtan ade quat e fa ctual bas i s t o do s o, ( 3) t hatt he r es t i tut i on or derw as i m pr operi n thati tvi ol at ed the Ex P os tFact o C l aus e of the Feder al C ons t i tut i on, and ( 4) t he r es t i tut i on amount m i s cal cul at ed the amountof lo s s a n d e x c e e d e d th e a c tu a l v a lu e o f th e v e h ic le s th a t h e a lte re d . T he d i stri ctcou rtadd res sed t he rest i tuti on i ssues fi rs tand held that because t he l anguage of 28 U . S. C . § 2255 onl yal l ow s t he courtt o gr antr el i ef t o fede r al pr i s oner s cl ai m i ng t he r i ghtt o be r el eas ed, chal l enges t o r es t i tut i on or der s ar e not c o g n iz a b le , e v e n w h e n c o u p le d w ith a c h a lle n g e to a s e n te n c e o f im p ri s o n m e n t. T he di s t r i ctcour tt her efor e hel d thati thad no s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on over tho se issu es. A s to the rem ainin g issue s, the d istri ct co u rth eld th at th eyw ere p re c lu d e d b yth e w a iv e r o f a p p e a l in th e p lea a g re e m e n t an d th a t M r. S a tterfield coul d nots how i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el s uch thatt he pl ea a gr eement s houl d be s etas i de.-3-

M r . S a t t e r fi e l d fi l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n fo ra c e r t i fi c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i ty( CO A) w ith th is c o u rt s e e k in g to a p p e a l a ll o f th e is s u e s ra is e d b e fo re th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . T hi s cour tpr evi ous l ygr ant ed a CO A on the ques t i on of w hethera movantm ay c h a llen g e th e re stitu tio n p o rtio n o f h is s e n ten c e in a m o tio n filed p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . S e e Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) ( s t at i ng t hatunt i l a C O A i s s ues under28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) “fe der al court s of appe al l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o rul e on the mer i t s of appe al s ” of § 2255 a ppl i cant s ) . W e now e x e rc is e o u r j u ri s d ic tio n re g a rd in g th a t q u e s tio n , s ee 28 U . S. C . §§ 1291, 2255, a n d a ffi r m. U n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 : [a] pr i s oneri n cus t odyunders ent ence of a c our tes t abl i s hed byA ct of C ongr es s cl ai m i ng t he r i ghtt o be r el eas ed upon the gr ound that t he s ent ence w as i m pos ed i n vi ol at i on of the C ons t i tut i on orl aw s of t he U ni t ed St at es . . . ort hatthe s ent ence w as i n exce s s of the m axi m um author i zed byl aw . . . m aym ove the courtw hi ch i m pos ed t he s ent ence t o vaca t e, s etas i de orcorr ectthe s ent ence . M r . Sat t er fi el d cannotchal l enge the amountof r es t i tut i on aw ar ded byw ayof a § 2255 m ot i on, how ever , becaus e he i s not“cl ai m i ng the r i ghtt o be r el eas ed” f ro m c u s to d yb a s e d o n h is c la im . See, e. g. , United S tates v. B ernard , 351 F. 3d 3 6 0 , 3 6 1 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c itin g c a s e s ).-4-

C ons equent l y , t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of thi s cl ai m forl ack of s ubj ect m at t erj ur i s di ct i on i s A FFIRM E D . A s t o the r emai ni ng ar gum ent s r ai s ed by M r. S a tterfield in h is a p p lica tio n fo r C O A , w e a g re e w ith th e re a so n in g se t fo rth byt he di s t r i ctcourti n deny i ng t hos e ar gum ent s ; hol d thathe has fai l ed t o m ake

“ a s u b s t a n t i a l s h o wi n g o f t h e d e n i a l o f

a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t , ” 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ); a n d D E N Y h is a p p lica tio n fo r C O A . M r. S a tterfield ’s a p p e a l is t h e r e fo r e DI S M I S S E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

T err ence L . O ’ B r i en C i r cui tJ udge