A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd the 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 d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s t her efor e s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor 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, orcol 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 te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s o f 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . B eca us e he i s pr ocee di ng pr o s e, w e r evi ew M r . B ut l er ’ s pl eadi ngs and 1 fi l i ngs l i ber al l y . See Hai nes v. Ker ner , 4 0 4 U . S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -21 (19 7 2 ); Hal lv. B el lm on , 9 3 5 F .2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 0 (1 0 th C ir .1 9 9 1 ). 

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

### O c t ob e r13,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 

### UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

T E N T H C IRC 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. ARNOLD D. BUTL ER, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 8023 ( D. C. No . 0 2 - CV- 2 2 4 - B) ( W y om i ng)



### ORD ERAN D J UDG M EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

A r nol d D evonne But l er , a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , chal l enges 1 t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s den i al of h i s R ule 60(b)( 6) m oti on . T he d i stri ctcou rtal soA pet i t i onerm us tobt ai n a C O A befor e pr ocee di ng w i th hi s orherappea l 2 of a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of hi s orherR ul e 60( b) m ot i on, w her e the di s tr i ct cour tt r eat ed the mot i on as a “true” Rul e 60( b) m ot i on and notas a s econd or s u c c e s s iv e h a b e a s p e titio n . Spi tz nas v. B oone , __ F. 3d __, 2006 W L 2789868 at * 3 (10 th C ir . , S ep t. 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 ).

- 2- d e n ie d M r. B u tle r’ s a p p lic a tio n fo r a c e rt ific a te o f a p p e a la b ility (“ C O A ” ) . 2 B eca us e w e conc l ude the di s t r i ctcourti ncorr ect l yt r eat ed M r . B ut l er ’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on as a “true” Rul e 60( b) m ot i on, w e vac at e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derforl ack of j ur i s di ct i on, cons t rue M r . B ut l er ’ s m ot i on as an appl i cat i on t o fi l e a s econd or s ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i on, and denyt hatm ot i on. M r. B u tler w a s c o n v icte d b ya ju ryin 1 9 9 8 o f p o ss e ss io n o f

c o c a in e w ith i nt entt o di s t r i but e and a i di ng and abe t t i ng i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) a n d 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(B ). In 2 0 0 2 , h e filed a m o tio n to v a c a te, s e t as id e o r c o rre c t h is s ent ence pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255 cl ai m i ng he w as deni ed effec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . T he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed M r . B ut l er ’ s § 2255 m ot i on, and h e a p p e a led . W e d e n ied M r. B u tler’ s a p p lica tio n fo r a C O A a n d d ism iss e d h is appea l . R ec. , vol I att ab 24. M or e than a y earand a ha l f af t ert he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed hi s § 2255 m ot i on, M r . B ut l erfi l ed a mot i on forr el i ef f r om j udgm entpur s uantt o F ED . R. C IV . P. 60( b) ( 6) , cl ai m i ng t he di s tr i ctcourtm i s cons trued hi s § 2255 cl ai m s and the a cc o m p an y ing affid av it . T h e d istri ct co u rtstat ed that ith ad “re v iew ed M r. B ut l er ’ s s uppl ement al aff i davi tagai n” and that“[e ] ven w hen vi ew ed i n the l i ght- 3-

s u g g e s t e d b yM r . Bu t l e r , t h e a ffi d a v i ti s i n s u ffi c i e n tt o s u p p o r ta n yo f th e c l a i ms pr es ent ed i n hi s or i gi nal § 2255 m ot i on. ” R ec. , vol . I att ab 27. T he courtdeni ed M r . B ut l er ’ s R ul e 60( b) ( 6) m ot i on, and he appeal s thatdeci s i on. I n Spi tz nas v. B oone , __ F .3 d __ , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 7 8 9 8 6 8 a t * 1 (1 0 th C ir., S e p t. 29, 2006) , w e ac know l edged thati n G onz al ezv. C r os by , 545 U . S. 524 ( 2005) , t he Supr eme C our toverrul ed ourhol di ng i n Lopezv. D ouglas , 1 4 1 F .3 d 9 7 4 (1 0 th C i r . 1998) , t hatal l R ul e 60( b) m ot i ons i n habea s pr ocee di ngs m us tbe tr eat ed as s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e h a b e a s p e titio n s fo r p u rp o s e s o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b ). A ccor di ngl y , w e now m us tdi s t i ngui s h betw een Rul e 60( b) m ot i ons thatar e “true” R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n s a n d se c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e h a b e a s p e tit io n s th a t m e re ly m a s q u e ra d e a s R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n s . Spi tz nas , 2006 W L 2789868 at* 1- 4. “U nder G onz al ez , a 60( b) m ot i on i s a s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i on i f i ti n s ubs t ance or effectas s ert s orr eas s ert s a fe der al bas i s forr el i ef f r om the pet i t i oner ’ s under l y i ng convi ct i on. ” Id . at 1 . In th e e v e n t w e d e ter m in e th a t th e d istric t co u rt in c o rre c tly t r eat ed a mot i on fora s ucce s s i ve ors econd ha beas pet i t i on as a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, “w e w i l l vaca t e the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s or derforl ack of j ur i s di ct i on and cons t rue the pet i t i oner ’ s appea l as an appl i cat i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i on. ” Id . at*4. M r. B u tler’ s c laim th a t th e d istric t co u rt m isc o n stru e d a rg u m e n ts in h is §2 25 5 m oti on and cert ai n st at em ents i n h i s affi dav i tdo no t , as he asser t s, “cha l l enge[ ] a defecti n t he i nt egr i tyof the fe der al habea s pr ocee di ng. ” Id . a t * 1 .- 4-

I ns t ead, hi s cl ai m fi t s s quar el yw i thi n one of the exa m pl es of a Rul e 60( b) m ot i on t hatw e s ai d i n Spi tz nas s houl d be tr eat ed as a s econd ors ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i on i n t hathi s “mot i on s eek[ s ] vi ndi cat i on of [one of hi s under l y i ng] habea s cl ai m [s ] bychal l engi ng t he habe as cour t ’ s pr evi ous rul i ng on t he mer i t s of that cl ai m . ” Id . ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I n otherw or ds , M r . B ut l er ’ s cl ai m thatthe di s t r i ctcourtm i s cons t rued hi s ar gum ent s orcert ai n evi dence he pr es ent ed does not hi ng m or e than cha l l enge the court ’ s rul i ng. A ccor di ngl y , hi s R ul e 60( b) ( 6) m ot i on cannotbe dee m ed a “ t rue” Rul e 60( b) m ot i on and musti ns t ead be tr eat ed a s a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e h a b e a s p e titio n .

T he A E D PA - amended habea s corpus s t atut es r es tr i ctthe pow er of the fe der al cour t s t o ent er t ai n s econd ors ucce s s i ve appl i cat i ons fo r w ri ts o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s . See 28 U . S. C . § 2244. B efor e a pet i t i onerm ayfi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve 28 U . S. C . § 2254 pet i t i on i n t he di s t r i ctcourt , he musts ucce s s ful l yappl yt o thi s courtforan o rd e r a u th o ri z in g th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to c o n s id e r t h e p e titio n . S e e id . § 2 2 4 4 (b)(3 ). Spi tz nas , 2006 W L 2789868 at*1 ( footnot e omi t t ed) . I n or dert o r ece i ve author i zat i on t o fi l e a s ucce s s i ve pet i t i on, an appl i cantm us tm ake a pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng thathe s at i s fi es the cr i t er i a i n § 2244( b) ( 2) . . . . T hati s he musts how that : ( i ) the fa ctual p re d ica te fo r th e c laim c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n d isc o v e re d p re v io u sly t hr ough t he exe r ci s e of due di l i gence ; and ( i i ) the fa ct s under l y i ng t he cl ai m , i f pr oven and vi ew ed i n l i ghtof 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 t hat , butforcons t i tut i onal err or , no r eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw oul d have fo u n d th e a p p lic a n t g u ilty o f th e u n d e rl y in g o ffe n s e . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b)(2 )(B ). Spi tz nas , 2006 W L 2789868 at*12. W e nee d notcons i derw hetherM r . B ut l er- 5-

m eet s t he s econd e l ementof thi s i nqui ry , “s i nce the t es ti s conj unct i ve and he fai l s t he fi r s tel ement . ” Id . M r. B u tler p re se n ts n o n e w fa c ts o r e v id e n c e in su p p o rt o f

h is in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l cla im s. In ste a d , h e m e re lya ss e rts t he di s t r i ctcour tm i s under s t ood the evi dence he had pr evi ous l ypr es ent ed. H e has t hus fai l ed t o m ake a pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng thatm i ghtperm i tus t o author i ze the fi l i ng of a s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e VAC ATE forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der d e n y in g M r. B u tle r’ s R u le 6 0 (b )( 6 ) m o tio n , D I SM I SS h i s a p p l i c a t i o n fo ra CO A and D I SM I SS t hi s appea l . Fi nal l y , w e cons true M r . B ut l er ’ s not i ce of appea l as an appl i cat i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i on, and w e DE NY it. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge