T he ca s e i s unani m ous l y or der ed s ubm i tt ed w i thoutor al ar gum entpur s uant * to F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ) a n d 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). 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 ptunderthe doctri nes ofl aw ofthe ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l y di s favor s the ci t ati on ofor der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm ay be c i t ed underthe t er m s and condi t i ons of10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### August 23,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

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. TREN TON M c DA NI EL, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 6150 ( D. C. No. CR- 9 9 - 2 - L) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. T hi s cas e i s befor e us on di r ectappea l ofthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al s of T re n to n M c D a n iel’s p e titio n fo r a w rit o f c o ra m n o b is a n d m o tio n to r echar act er i ze pr ocee di ngs , thr ough w hi ch M cD ani el s eeks t o att ack hi s cr i m i nal c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e . Mc Da n i e l n o w a p p e a l s , s e e k i n g t o p r o c e e d i n fo r ma pauperi s ( “I FP”) . W e GRANT h is m o tio n to p ro c e e d IF P , an d a d d re ss h is p e titio n o n th e m e ri ts . Fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons s etforth bythe di s tr i ct- 2-

court , w e AF F I RM the deni al of both M cD ani el ’ s pet i t i on fora w r i tof cor am n o b is a n d h is m o tio n fo r r e c h a ra c te ri z a tio n . Pur s uantt o a pl ea a gr eem ent , M cD ani el pl ed gui l ty t o one countof di s tr i but i on ofcr ack c ocai ne i n excha nge fordi s m i s s al ofthe r em ai ni ng four cou nts againsthim . O n M ay 2 7, 19 99 , M cD aniel w as sent enced t o 2 16 m on ths’ in c a rc e ra tio n . T h e re w a s n o d ir e c t a p p e a l o f h is c o n v ic tio n o r s e n te n c e . H ow ever , M cD ani elfi l ed hi s peti t i on fora w r i tofcor am nobi s on O ct ober24, 2 0 0 5 . O n N o v e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , M c D a n iel file d a m o tio n to re c h a ra c ter ize h is cor am nobi s peti t i on as a “H abea s corpus type peti t i on forpos t - convi cti on r el i ef . ” R el y i ng on U ni t ed St at es v. T orr es , 282 F. 3d 1241, 1245 ( 10th C i r . 2002) , w hi ch h e ldth a t a p riso n e r m a yn o t ch a llen g e a se n ten c e o r c o n v ictio n fo r w h ich h e is cu rren tl yin cu stod ythro u g h a w ri t of co ram n o b is, the c o u rtd en ied M cD an iel ’s re q u e st fo r a w rit o f

c o ra m n o b is. A d d iti o n a lly , the c o u rt d e c lin e d to r echar act er i ze hi s pet i t i on as a 28 U . S. C . § 2255 habea s pet i t i on becaus e s uch a cl ai m w oul d be barr ed bythe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T he di s tr i ctcourtal s o deni ed M cD an iel a c erti fica te of ap p ea labili ty(“C O A ”) “ to the ex tent that d efen d an t’ s act i on coul d be cha r act er i zed a s a mot i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. ” O n appea l of a de ni al of a w r i tof cor am nobi s , w e r evi ew de novo the ques t i on of w hethera di s tr i ctcourtappl i ed the pr operl egals t andar d, and r evi ew the ul t i m at e dec i s i on t o denythe w r i tforan abus e of di s cr et i on. See U ni t edM cD ani el ’ s pet i t i on w as fi l ed af t erA pr i l 24, 1996, the effec t i ve dat e of the 1 A n ti terrori sm an d E ffec ti v e D ea th P en altyA ct (“A E D P A ”); as a re su lt , A E D P A ’s p ro v is io n s ap p ly to th is c a s e . S e e R o g e rs v . G ib s o n , 1 7 3 F .3 d 1 2 7 8 , 1 2 8 2 n .1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) (cit ing L ind h v . M u rph y , 5 2 1 U . S . 3 2 0 (19 9 7 )).

- 3- S tate s v . M a n d a n ici, 2 0 5 F .3 d 5 1 9 , 5 2 4 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). B e c a u se M c D a n iel is in the cus t odyof the B ur eau of Pr i s ons s ervi ng hi s fede r al s ent ence , he maynot chal l enge hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence thr ough a w r i tof cor am nobi s . T her efor e, the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni alof s uch a w r i ti s aff i rm ed. See Torr es , 282 F. 3d at 1 2 4 5 . T h e d istric t co u rt a lso d e c lin e d to re c h a ra c ter ize M c D a n iel’s c o ra m n o b is pet i t i on as a § 2255 pet i t i on. W e have gener al l ydi s favor ed s uch r echar act er i zat i on forpr o s e pr i s oner s becaus e of ourconce rn thatcons trui ng a m ot i on as a § 2255 pet i t i on w oul d l ead c ourt s t o bars ubs equenthabea s pet i t i ons a s s u c c e s s iv e . S e e U n ite dS ta te s v . K e lly, 2 3 5 F .3 d 1 2 3 8 , 1 2 4 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). W e have r equi r ed thatdi s tr i ctcourt s i nform pr o s e pr i s oner s of the pot ent i al a d v e rse c o n se qu e n c e s o f su c h a re c h a ra c ter iza tio n a n d g iv e th e m th e o p p o rtu n ity to w ith d ra w th e ir m o tio n . Id . In th is c a se , the d istric t co u rt d e c lin e d to r echar act er i ze M cD ani el ’ s pet i t i on on the bas i s thateven i f hi s pet i t i on had bee n r echar act er i zed, i tw oul d have be en barr ed by§ 2255’ s one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . M cD ani el fi l ed hi s m ot i on m or e than s i x y ear s aft erhi s convi ct i on

1 b e c a m e fin a l.- 4-

Fourof the fi ve cl ai m s i n M cD ani el ’ s pet i t i on fora w r i tof c o ra m n o b is w e re b a s e d o n is s u e s w h ic h s h o u ld h a v e b e e n ra is e d o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. A ccor di ngl y , M cD ani el m us ts how caus e fornotr ai s i ng thes e i s s ues on di r ect ap p e a l an d a c tu a l p reju d ice re su lti n g f ro m th e e rro rs a lleg e d , o r m u st s h o w th a t a f u n d a m e n ta l m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e w o u ld re s u lt if h is c la im is n o t a d d re s s e d . U ni t ed St at es v. R i ddi ck, 104 F. 3d 1239 ( 10th C i r . 1997) . H e makes no s uch sh o w in g . In h is fin a l cla im , M c D a n iel c o n ten d s h is s e n ten c in g v io late d B lak e ly v. W as hi ngt on, 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) , and U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . W e h a v e h e l d th a tn e i th e rc a s e ap p l i e s r e tr o a c t i v e l yt o c a s e s th a tb e c a me fi nal pr i ort o thei ri s s uance , s uch as M cD ani el ’ s . U ni t ed St at es v. B el l amy , 411 F .3 d 1 1 8 2 , 1 1 8 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); U n ited S tate s v . P ric e , 4 0 0 F .3 d 8 4 4 , 8 4 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W e d isc e rn n o e rro r in th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n n o t to r echar act er i ze M cD ani el ’ s m ot i on as a § 2255 pet i t i on w hi ch w oul d have i nevi t abl yfai l ed. A ccor di ngl y , w e AF F I RM th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f th e w rit of co ram no bis , and i t s deci si on no tt o recharact eri ze M cD aniel ’s peti t i on as a m ot i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255 t o vaca t e, s etas i de, orcorr ects ent ence by a per s on i n feder al cus t ody . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge