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 pro se , w e r evi ew M r . C us t ar d’ s pl eadi ngs and 1 filin g s lib e ra lly. See Hai nes v. Ker ner , 4 0 4 U .S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -2 1 (1 9 7 2 ); Hal lv. B el lm on , 9 3 5 F . 2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). 

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

### A u gu s t17,2006 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. RO BE RT AL L E N C US T AR D, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 1454 ( D . C . N o . 9 3 - C R - 5 0 - Z L W) ( C ol or ado)



### ORD ERAN D J UDG M EN T * B efor e M URP HY, S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. R ober tA l l en C us t ar d, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , appea l s fr om 1 t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s r echa r act er i zat i on of hi s fi l i ng ent i t l ed “D efe ndant ’ s M ot i on- 2-

ForR educt i on of Sent ence Pur s uantT o 18 U . S. C [§] 3582” as a mot i on t o vaca t e, s etas i de orcorr ecthi s s ent ence pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255, w hi ch i tther eaf t er deni ed as unt i m el y . W e affi r m t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s det erm i nat i on thati tl acke d a u th o rityto a c t o n M r. C u sta rd ’s r e q u e sts m a d e p u rsu a n t to § 3 5 8 2 , b u t v a c a te its r echa r act er i zat i on of the ac t i on as a § 2255 mot i on. O n J ul y12, 2004, M r . C us t ar d fi l ed hi s “M ot i on ForR educt i on of Sent ence P u r s u a n tTo 1 8 U. S . C [ § ] 3 5 8 2 , ” i n wh i c h h e a r g u e d th e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C our t ’ s hol di ng i n B l akel y v. Was hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) , r equi r ed a r evi ew of hi s s ent ence . T he di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i ned i tw as w i thoutauthor i tyt o cons i der M r . C us t ar d’ s r eques tunder§ 3582, butthen cons trued the fi l i ng as a § 2255 m ot i on and di s m i s s ed i tas t i m e barr ed. M r . C us t ar d fi l ed a “ M ot i on for R e c iss io n [ sic ] O f

th e Ju ly2 8 , 2 0 0 5 O rd e r A n d /O r N o tice o f A p p e a l O f

th e Ju ly 28, 2005 O r der , ” ar gui ng t he di s tr i ctcour tcoul d notr echa r act er i ze hi s § 3582 m oti on as a § 22 55 m oti on w i t ho ut fi rs tprovidi ng him no t i ce of the “ad verse c o n se q u e n c e s” o f

su c h a re c h a ra c ter iza tio n a n d p e rm itt in g h im th e o p p o rtu n ityto w i t hdr aw oramend hi s act i on. T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed hi s r eques tt o r es ci nd t he o rde r. B efo re u s, M r. C u stard re n ew s h is objecti o n to the d istri ct co u rt ’s r echa r act er i zat i on of hi s act i on. T h e d istri ct co u rtco rrectl yco n clud ed itco u ld n o t m o d ifyM r. C u stard’s se n ten c e p u rsu a n t to § 3 5 8 2 a s h e re q u e ste d . “A d istric t co u rt is a u th o riz e d to m odi fya D efe ndant ’ s s ent ence onl yi n s peci fi ed i ns t ance s w her e C ongr es s has- 3-

expr es s l ygr ant ed the courtj ur i s di ct i on t o do s o. ” Un itedS ta tes v . B la c kw e ll , 81 F. 3d 945, 947 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . “Sect i on 3582( c) pr ovi des t hat a c o u rt m ay notm odi fya t erm of i m pr i s onm entonce i thas been i m pos ed exc ept i n t hr ee l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Sm a rtt , 129 F. 3d 539, 540- 41 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) ( emphasi s i n t he or i gi nal ; ci t at i ons and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . N one of thos e ci r cumst ance s i s pr es enther e. A ccor di ngl y , the di s tr i ct co u rtw as w ith o u t j u ri sd ict ion to co n side r M r. C u stard’s req u est fo r a m o d ific a tio n o f

h is s e n te n c e . See i d. at541. T he di s t r i ctcour terr ed, how ever , i n r echa r act er i zi ng M r . C us t ar d’ s fi l i ng as a § 2255 mot i on w i t houtfi r s tnot i fy i ng hi m of the cons equenc es and pr ovi di ng hi m an oppor tuni t yt o w i t hdr aw oramend hi s cl ai m s . I n C as tr o v. Uni t ed Stat es , t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thel d thata d istri ct co u rtm u st no ti fy[a ] pro se lit ig a n t th a t itin ten d s to re c h a ra c ter ize [ h is] p lea d in g , w a rn th e lit ig a n t th a t th is r echa r act er i zat i on m eans anys ubs equent§ 2255 m ot i on w i l l be s ubj ectt o r es t r i ct i ons on ‘ s econd ors ucce s s i ve’ m ot i ons , and pr ovi de t he li t i gan tan o pp ortun i t yt o w i thd raw the m oti on or t o am end i tso t hat i tcon t ai ns al l t he § 22 55 cl ai m s he beli eves he has. 540 U . S. 375, 383 ( 2003) . B eca us e the di s tr i ctcour tfai l ed t o compl yw i th the Supr eme C our t ’ s hol di ng i n C astro , w e c o n clud e it s rec h ara cterizati o n o f M r. C us t ar d’ s fi l i ng w as i m pr oper . T he di s tr i ctcour terr ed bydeny i ng M r . C us t ar d an o p p o rt u n ity to a m e n d o r w ith d ra w h is a c tio n . A ccor di ngl y , w e VAC ATE the c o u rt ’s rech ara cterizati o n o f M r. C u stard’s- 4-

act i on as a § 2255 mot i on, butw e AF F I RM i t s di s m i s s al of M r . C us t ar d’ s § 3582 act i on. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge