T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe * d o c tr in e s o f

la w o f th e c a s e , re s ju d ica ta and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 11, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court 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. D O N A L D B .W . E V A N S J R ., D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 07- 5055 ( D. Ct . No. 9 0 - CR- 0 0 3 1 - 0 0 1 - CV E)

(N .D . O k la .)

____________________________ ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re T AC HA , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge, and BARRETT and BROR BY , Seni or C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe 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.

A ppel l antD onal d B . W . E vans J r . , a pro se l i t i gantand fe der al i nm at e,In c h ron o log ical ord er, th e § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n s o r suc ce ssive m o ti o n s w ere 1 d isp o se d o f

e ith e r b yo rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t o r b yo rd e r d e n y in g a u th o riz a tio n to file a se c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n , as fo llo w s: Uni t ed Stat es v. E vans , 51 F . 3 d 2 8 7 (10 th C ir . M ar. 31 , 1 9 9 5 ) (un p u b li sh ed o p . ); Uni t ed Stat es v. E vans , 82 F .3 d 4 2 7 (1 0 th C ir. A p r. 1 0 , 1 9 9 6 ) (u n p u b lish e d o p .); E vans v. Uni t ed Stat es , N o. 0 1 -5 0 8 9 , O rd e r filed Ju ly2 7 , 2 0 0 1 ; E vans v. Uni t ed Stat es , N o. 04- 5136, O r der (c o n tin u e d ...) -2- appea l s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof c o ra m n o b is , p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 6 5 1 , w h i c h s e e k s a r e d u c t i o n o f h i s l i fe s e n t e n c e . We e x e rc is e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffir m . I . Pr ocedur al B ackgr ound O n M a y3 0 , 1 9 9 0 , a ju ryfo u n d M r. E v a n s g u iltyo f c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te a n d to p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te fif tyg ra m s o r m o re o f

c o c a in e b a se in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( A )( iii) a n d 8 4 6 . See Uni t ed Stat es v. E vans , 9 7 0 F .2 d 6 6 3 , 6 6 6 , 6 7 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ), cer t . deni ed , E vans v. Uni t ed Stat es , 507 U .S . 9 2 2 (1 9 9 3 ). O n A u g u st 2 2 , 1 9 9 0 , the d istric t co u rt se n ten c e d M r. E v a n s to l i fe i m pr i s onm entaft erconduct i ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng and fi ndi ng the drug a m o u n t a ttr ib u ta b le to h im w a s 9 .5 k ilo g ra m s o f c ra c k c o c a in e . Id. at676, 678- 79. I n 1992, thi s courtaff i rm ed M r . E vans ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence on di r ect a p p e a l, a f

te r w h ic h th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p re m e C o u rtd e n ie d a w ri t o f c e rt io ra ri . Id. T her eaf

t er , fr om 1994 t o 2005, M r . E vans fi l ed atl eas ts i x uns ucce s s ful 28 U . S. C . § 2255 m ot i ons t o vaca t e, s etas i de, orcorr ecthi s s ent ence on var i ous groun ds – m ostof w hich w ere consi dered secon d o r s uccessi ve § 22 55 m oti on s. 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 filed O c to b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 4 ; E vans v. Uni t ed Stat es , N o. 05 -5078 , O rderfi l ed A ug ust 24, 2005 ( gr ant i ng A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s appea l on r econs i der at i on of § 2 2 5 5 ); E vans v. Uni t ed Stat es , N o . 0 5 -5 1 4 2 , O rd e r file d O c to b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 . Sect i on 3582( c) al l ow s the courtt o m odi fya s ent ence i n onl ythr ee 2 lim ited c irc u m sta n c e s: 1 ) o n m o tio n o f th e D ire c to r o f

th e B u re a u o f

P riso n s if s peci al ci r cumst ance s exi s t ; 2) i f otherw i s e expr es s l yperm i t t ed bys t atut e or F e d e ra l R u le o f

C rim in a l P ro c e d u re 3 5 ; o r 3 ) if th e se n ten c in g ra n g e is s u b s e q u e n tly lo w e re d b yth e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n . Un itedS ta tes v . Sm a rtt , 1 2 9 F . 3 d 5 3 9 , 5 4 0 -41 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). -3- I n a d d i t i o n , o n J u n e 1 0 , 1 9 9 6 , M r . Ev a n s fi l e d a mo t i o n u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3582( c) t o m odi fyhi s s ent ence , w hi ch the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed on D ece m ber6, 1996. O n D ece m ber30, 1996, he fi l ed a mot i on underFeder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 35 form odi fi cat i on of hi s s ent ence , w hi ch the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed on J a n u a ry 7 , 1 9 9 8 . M o re re c e n tly , o n Ja n u a ry3 0 , 2 0 0 6 , M r. E v a n s filed a se c o n d m o tio n to m o d ify h is sen tenc e u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 , w h ich th e d istri ct co u rtd en ied. In 2 hi s m ot i on, M r . E vans ar gued the r ece ntm odi fi cat i ons underU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “G ui del i nes ” or“U . S. S. G . ”) A m endment s 505 and 591, affect i ng U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1, s houl d be appl i ed t o r educe hi s s ent ence . I n deny i ng M r . E vans ’ s § 3582 m ot i on, the di s tr i ctcourtexpl ai ned thateven i f the m od i fi cat i on app l i ed, his t otal offense l evel w ou l d o nlybe redu ced b ytw o level s,M r. E v an s’s t o tal o ffen se lev el w as o ri g inally4 6 . T h e d istri ct co u rt 3 n o ted th at a red u cti o n in the o ffen se lev el t o 4 4 , tog ethe r w ith a c ri m inal h ist o ry c a te g o ry o f

I, w o u ld re s u lt in a G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e o f life im p ri s o n m e n t. See U .S .S .G ., C h . 5 , P t. A (S e n te n c in g T a b le ). A r evi ew of M r . E vans ’ s pr evi ous l yfi l ed § 3582 mot i on es t abl i s hes that 4 w hi l e he di d m ent i on Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , i n a footnot e, h e d id n o t prese n t a de tai led a rgu m en t on this pa rt icular B ookeriss u e u n til h is § 1 6 5 1 p e titio n . -4- r es ul t i ng i n the s ame s ent enci ng r ange of l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . M r . E vans then 3 fi l ed a m oti on for r econ si derat i on w hich the d i stri ctcou rtal so den i ed. O n A ug ust 29, 2006, thi s courtdi s m i s s ed M r . E vans ’ s unt i m el yappea l forl ack of ju ri s d ic tio n , a n d o n O c to b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , w e d e n ie d h is p e titio n fo r r e h e a ri n g . See Uni t ed Stat es v. E vans , N o . 0 6 -5 1 5 5 . T u rnin g to the li ti g ati o n inv o lving this ap p ea l, o n F eb rua ry2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , M r. E v a n s filed a “ P e tit io n fo r W rit P u rsu a n t to T itl e 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 5 1 T h e A ll W rits A ct, ” w h ich th e d istri ct co u rtd en ied o n M arc h 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 . In h is pe ti ti o n , M r. E vans cl ai m ed the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n deny i ng hi s s econd § 3582 mot i on beca us e i tr efus ed t o r es ent ence hi m underthe new advi s oryG ui del i nes s ent enci ng s t andar d, r atherthan the mandat orys t andar d appl i ed w hen he w as sen tenc ed o n A u g u st 22 , 1 9 9 0 . A s a re su lt , h e c lai m ed , the d istri ct co u rt 4 err oneous l yi m pos ed a mandat orys ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . I n addi t i on, he a rg u e d th a t b e c a u se h a b e a s re lief u n d e r § 2 2 5 5 h a s b e e n u n a v a ilab le to h im , h is o n ly re c o u rs e lie s in filin g fo r r e lie f u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 5 1 .-5-

T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed M r . E vans ’ s pet i t i on, expl ai ni ng the i s s uance of a w r i tof coram no bis under28 U . S. C . § 1651 i s an extr aor di naryr emedyal l ow ed onl yundercompel l i ng ci r cumst ance s w hen § 2255 mot i ons orotherform s of r el i ef a r e notavai l abl e. I tfurtherexpl ai ned s uch a w r i ti s gener al l yonl yus ed w h e n th e p e tit io n e r h a s s e rv e d h is s e n ten c e c o m p lete lya n d is n o lo n g e r “ in cus t ody , ” as r equi r ed for§ 2255 r el i ef. W hi l e the di s tr i ctcourtacknow l edged the advi s oryG ui del i nes s t andar d appl i ed i n B ookerdi d notappl yr etr oact i vel yfor c o llate ra l re lief

u n d e r § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n s, it ex p lain e d th a t b e c a u se h e re m a in e d in cus t ody , the pr operact i on forchal l engi ng hi s s ent ence r emai ned § 2255, and not a comm on l aw w r i t . I n addi t i on, the di s tr i ctcourtcons trued M r . E vans ’ s § 1651 pet i t i on as a mot i on t o r econs i deri t s pr evi ous rul i ng deny i ng r el i ef unde r18 U . S. C . § 3582. R el y i ng on ourdeci s i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. P r i ce , the di s tr i ct courtexpl ai ned B ookerw as al s o i nappl i cabl e as a bas i s forr educt i on of a s e n te n c e u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 . See 4 3 8 F .3 d 1 0 0 5 , 1 0 0 7 & n .2 (1 0 th C ir .), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 2 3 6 5 (20 0 6 ).

I I . D i s cus s i on M r. E v a n s n o w a p p e a ls th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is p e tit io n fo r a w rit of coram no bis under28 U . S. C . § 1651, cl ai m i ng the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n fai l i ng to re tro a c tiv e lya p p lyth e G u id e lin e s in a n a d v iso rym a n n e r. F o r th e first tim e in hi s § 1651 act i on, he al s o s um m ar i l ycl ai m s the di s tr i ctcourtbas ed i t s s ent enci ng-6-

deci s i on on unr el i abl e i nform at i on fr om the pr es ent ence r eportw hi ch vi ol at es “R u le 32 , ” is “sti ll in d ispu te, ” a n d arb itraril yap p li es “ p o ison o u s fru it s. ” M r. E van s’ s appea l l acks m eri tfor the fo l l ow i ng reas on s.

T o b e g i n , we r e v i e w de novo the d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f a p eti ti o n fo r a w r i tof coram no bis fi l ed under28 U . S. C . § 1651 and i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl ear e rr o r. See Kl ei n v. Uni t ed Stat es , 8 8 0 F .2 d 2 5 0 , 2 5 5 -5 6 & n .6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). A s the di s tr i ctcourthel d, a w r i tof coram no bis i s an extr aordi naryw ri tbecau se it e x te n d s litig a tio n b e y o n d th e fin a l ju d g m e n t a n d e x h a u s tio n o f o th e r r e m e d ie s . Id . at253. Such a w r i t“i s us ed t o att ack a l l egedl yi nval i d convi ct i ons w hi ch have cont i nui ng cons equenc es , w hen the pet i t i onerhas s erved hi s s ent ence and i s no l onger‘ i n cus t ody ’ forthe purpos es of 28 U . S. C . § 2255. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. St onem an , 870 F. 2d 102, 105- 06 ( 3d C i r . 1989) . I tm aybe us ed onl yt o corr ect e rr o rs re s u ltin g in c o m p le te m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Wi l l i am s on , 806 F. 2d 216, 222 ( 10th C i r . 1986) . Forthi s r eas on, M r . E vans carr i es the bur den of de m ons tr at i ng “the as s ert ed err ori s j ur i s di ct i onal or cons t i tut i onal and r es ul t s i n a compl et e mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” K lein , 880 F. 2d at253.

I n th i s c a s e , i ti s a p p a r e n tM r . Ev a n s fi l e d h i s p e t i t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1651 fora w r i tof coram no bis in a n e ffo rt to fin d a n o th e r m e a n s to-7-

r e tr o a c t i v e l y a p p l y B ookerto h is s e n ten c e , g iv e n th is c o u rt h a s e x p re ss lyh e ld B ookerd o e s n o t ap p lyre tro a c tiv e lyto c o llate ra l p ro c e e d in g s u n d e r § 2 2 5 5 a n d is n o t g ro u n d s fo r r e lie f u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 . See Pri ce , 438 F. 3d at1007 & n. 2 ( i nvol vi ng 18 U . S. C . § 3582) ; Un i t e dS ta t e s v . B e l la my , 4 1 1 F . 3 d 1 1 8 2 , 1 1 8 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (i n v o lving 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 ).

H o w e v e r, b e c a u se M r. E v a n s is se rv in g a life se n ten c e , itis e v id e n t h e is still “in c u sto d y ” a n d h a s n o t se rv e d h is s e n ten c e – th e re q u isites g e n e ra lly a s s o c ia te d w ith a llo w in g o n e to p e titio n fo r s u c h a w ri t. See Stonem an , 870 F. 2d a t 1 0 5 -0 6 . E v e n if

th is lim itatio n d id n o t re stric t M r. E v a n s f ro m p ro c e e d in g w ith hi s pet i t i on, he i s s t i l l att empt i ng t o col l at er al l yatt ack hi s s ent ence underthe gui s e of § 1651. W e have hel d B ookerappl i es onl yt o cas es on di r ectr evi ew and n o t r e tr o a c tiv e ly to c a s e s o n c o lla te ra l r e v ie w . See Bey v . Uni t ed Stat es , 399 F. 3d 1 2 6 6 , 1 2 6 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). In tu rn , a m o tio n to c o rre c t a s e n ten c e p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 2255 r emai ns the pr operavenue forcol l at er al l ychal l engi ng a fe der al convi ct i on ors ent ence . “W her e a s t atut e s peci fi cal l yaddr es s es the part i cul ar i s s ue athand, ” as § 2255 does her e, “i ti s thatauthor i ty , and notthe A l l W r i t s A ct [under§ 1651] , thati s contr ol l i ng. ” C ar l is l e v. Uni t ed Stat es , 517 U . S. 416, 429 (1 9 9 6 ).

T he fa ctM r . E vans has notbeen s ucce s s ful i n hi s § 2255 m ot i ons does notF o r i n stan ce , ev en u n d er a n ad v isorysen tenc ing ran g e sc h em e, M r. 5 E vans ’ s advi s orys ent ence w oul d be l i fe i m pr i s onm ent , r egar dl es s of w hetherthe o ri g inal o ffen se lev el w as 4 6 o r 44 , as c o n side red b ythe d istri ct co u rtin M r. E v a n s ’s § 3 5 8 2 m o tio n . See U .S .S .G . C h . 5 , P t. A (S e n te n c in g T a b le ). -8- m e a n th a t p a rticu larp ro c e d u ra l av e n u e is n o t av a ilab le to h im , b u t sim p lyth a t h is a rg u m e n ts d id n o t w a rra n t m e rit. In a d d iti o n , h e h a s n o t sh o w n in e ith e r h is o p en ing b ri ef

o r rep lyb ri ef

fil ed o n ap p ea l, o r an yw h ere else in th e re co rd b efo re us , thata s ent enci ng err oroccurr ed w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a “c om pl et e mi s carr i age of ju s tic e ,” a s re q u ir e d fo r a w ri t u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 5 1 . See Wi l l i am s on , 806 F. 2d at 222. T hus , havi ng r evi ew ed the r ecor d and br i efs on appea l , w e conc l ude the

5 di s tr i ctcourtdi d noterri n deny i ng M r . E vans ’ s § 1651 pet i t i on fora w r i tof c o ra m n o b is . A s t o hi s cur s oryand s om ew hati ncoher entar gum entconce rni ng the di s tr i ct cou rt ’s rel i ance o n the present ence repo rt , w e con strue hi s pro se pl eadi ngs lib e ra lly. See Hai nes v. Ker ner , 404 U . S. 519, 520 ( 1972) . W hi l e w e cons true pro se p lead ing s li b era ll y , w e h av e re p ea tedlyh eld th at pe rfu n ctoryo r cu rsory r efe r ence t o an i s s ue, l i ke her e, unacc om pani ed bys om e effortata deve l oped a rg u m e n t, is in a d e q u a te to w a rr a n t c o n s id e ra tio n . See Uni t ed Stat es v. A lm ar az , 306 F. 3d 1031, 1041 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( r el y i ng on Uni t ed Stat es v. LaHue , 261 F. 3d 993, 1009 ( 10th C i r . 2001) , and Fem edee rv. Haun , 227 F. 3d 1244, 1255 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ) . I n addi t i on, w e gene r al l ydo notcons i dercl ai m s r ai s ed forthe-9-

fi r s tt i m e on appe al , exce pt , fori ns t ance , w hen the i s s ue i s a ques t i on of l aw , the proper res olut i on of w hich i s bey on d reasonab l e do ub t , and the fa i l ure t o ad dress th e is s u e w o u ld re s u lt in a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . Se e Sh o e ls v . Kleb o ld , 375 F. 3d 1054, 1062 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . N one of thos e cr i t er i a ar e pr es ent ed her e. U nder the ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed, M r . E vans ’ s ar gum enti s fr i vol ous and w e w i l l not e x p e n d f

u rt h e r j u d ic ia l r e s o u rc e s c o n s id e ri n g it.

Fi nal l y , s i nce hi s convi ct i on i n 1990, M r . E vans has fi l ed atl eas tt en d iffe ren t acti o n s an d n u m ero u s ap p ea ls, ex p en d ing jud ici al reso u rce s o n m att ers w hi ch have ei therpr evi ous l ybeen a dj udi cat ed orw er e otherw i s e dee m ed m e ritles s. “ T h e rig h t o f a c c e ss to th e c o u rts is n e ith e r a b so lu te n o r u n c o n d iti o n a l, and ther e i s no cons t i tut i onal r i ghtof ac ces s t o the court s t o pr os ecut e an a ct i on thati s fr i vol ous orm al i ci ous . ” Wi ns l ow v. Hunt er(In r e Wi ns l ow ) , 17 F. 3d 314, 3 1 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( percur i am ) ( q u o t a t i o n m a rk s a n d a l t e r a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . We th e re fo re c a u tio n M r. E v a n s f u rth e r fili n g s o n m e ritles s m a tters m a yre su lt i n sum m arydis po si t i on w i tho ut di scussi on and an o rderaski ng him t o sho w cause w h yth is c o u rts h o u ld n o t lim it h is f u tu re filin g s a n d p ro v id e fo r s a n c tio n s . See A ndr ew s v. Heaton , 483 F. 3d 1070, 1077- 78 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . W e furthercaut i on M r . E vans thatthe fa cthe i s a pro se l i t i gantdoes notpr ohi bi tthe courtfr om im p o s in g s u c h s a n c tio n s a g a in s t h im . See Haw or th v. R oyal , 347 F. 3d 1189, 1192 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).M r. E van s fi l ed a lett er on A ug ust22 , 20 07 , w hich w e con strued as a 6 m ot i on t o fi l e hi s r epl ybr i ef outof t i m e bythr ee da y s ; on A ugus t24, 2007, he al s o fi l ed a mot i on forext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e hi s r epl ybr i ef. -10- I I I . C oncl us i on W e gr ant M r . E vans ’ s m ot i ons for ext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e hi s r epl ybr i ef 6 and, forthe r eas ons s t at ed her ei n, w e AF F I RM the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derdeny i ng M r . E vans ’ s pet i t i on fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1651.

E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: W ADE BRO RBY U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge