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

### Ju ly5,2007 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 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. PA TR I CI A W I LLI A M S, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 07- 6042 ( D . C . N os . C R - 88- 081- F and 0 1 - CV - 1 0 1 2 - A) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R DENYI NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. D efe ndant - A ppel l antPat r i ci a W i l l i ams, a fe der al i nm at e appe ar i ng pr o s e, s eeks t o appea l fr om t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s or derdeny i ng her“M ot i on forR el i ef fr om J udgm entPur s uantt o R ul e 60( b) ( 4) ( 6) , Fed. R . C i v. P. , ” and i t s s ubs equent deni al of herm ot i on forr econs i der at i on. I n the mot i on, M s . W i l l i ams cha l l enged th e d istric t co u rt’s O c to b e r 2 0 0 1 d isp o sitio n o f h e r su c c e ss f

u l § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n to m odi fyand amend hers ent ence . She ar gued that : ( 1) s he w as notnot i fi ed of he r r i ghtt o as s i s t ance of couns el , ( 2) s he w as notal l ow ed t o r epl yt o the governm ent ’ s r es pons e, ( 3) s he w as notal l ow ed t o be pr es entw hen the s ent ence w as m odi fi ed, ( 4) s he w as notnot i fi ed of he rr i ghtt o appea l t he s ent ence , and ( 5) t he governm entcomm i t t ed fr aud on the courtbyfai l i ng t o i dent i fypr e- G ui del i nes- 2 -

conductcont ai ned i n t w o count s . N ot abl y , M s . W i l l i ams di d notappea l fr om the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s or derand r es ul t i ng j udgm enton her§ 2255 m ot i on. T he di s tr i ct cour tcons t rued M s . W i l l i ams’ s curr entm ot i on as a true R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, s ee G o n z a l e z v . C r o s b y, 5 4 5 U . S . 5 2 4 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , b u ti td e n i e d th e m o t i o n a s u n t i m e l y, gi ven thatM s . W i l l i ams fi l ed i ti n O ct ober2006, s om e fi ve y ear s aft erthe di s tr i ct co u rten tered it s o rde r on h er § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n . In th e a lt ern ati v e, th e d istri ct co u rt det erm i ned thatt he R ul e 60( b) m ot i on w as m er i t l es s . A di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o gr antordenya R ul e 60( b) m ot i on i s r evi ew ed forabus e of di s cr et i on. See Y a p p v . E x c e l C o rp ., 1 8 6 F .3 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 3 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T o s ecur e a CO A , M s . W i l l i ams m us tm ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . T hi s s t andar d r equi r es t hats he demonstr at e that“r eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether. . . the pet i t i on sh o u ld h av e b ee n reso lved in a d iffe ren t m an n er o r th at th e issu es p rese n ted w ere adequa t e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur ther . ” See M i l l er - E l v. C ockr el l , 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) ( quot i ng Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . G i ven thatthe s ubs t ant i ve sta n d a rd o f

re v iew is a b u se o f

d isc re tio n , w e d o n o t th in k it rea so n a b lyd e b a tab le t hatt he di s t r i ctcourterr ed byconcl udi ng thatM s . W i l l i ams’ s m ot i on w as unt i m el yaft ercons i der i ng herfai l ur e t o appea l the i ni t i al § 2255 j udgm ent , her fi ve y eardel ayi n fi l i ng t he i ns t antm ot i on, and the Supr eme C our t ’ s i s s uance of G o n z a le z in 2 0 0 5 .- 3 -

W e D E N Y a C O A a n d D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge