T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol 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. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u 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. 

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

### A u gu s t13,2007 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. RI CA RD O J OSE SUA REZ,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 07- 8011 (D . o f W y o .) (D . C . N o. 02 -C R -45-J )

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , TY M KOVI CH , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. ** T h is is R ica rd o Jo se S u a re z ’s th ird c a se b e fo re th is C o u rt. T h is tim e , ag a in p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , h e s e e k s t o mo d i f yh i s fe d e r a l s e n t e n c e u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ). F o r th e fo llo w in g re a so n s, w e fin d n o ju risd ictio n to m o d if yh is se n ten c e a n d d ism iss h is a p p e a l.-2- I . Backg r ound In M a rc h 2 0 0 2 , S u a re z w a s c h a rg e d w ith c o n sp ira c yto tra ffic in m ethamphet ami ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. A few m onths l at er , he pl eade d gui l tyt o t he countand w as s ent ence d t o 200 m onths i m pr i s onm ent , four y e a rs s u p e rv ise d re lea se , an d a $ 1 ,0 0 0 fin e . S u a re z d id n o t file a d ire c t ap p e a l in the m att er. I n J ul y2004, Suar ez f i l ed hi s fi r s t28 U . S. C . § 2255 habea s pet i t i on i n t he fede r al di s tr i ctcourtof W y om i ng, cl ai m i ng i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and thathi s s ent ence vi ol at es the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n B lakel y v. Was hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) . T he di s tr i ctcourtfound Suar ez’ s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m t i m e- barr ed and hi s s ent enci ng cl ai m m er i t l es s . T he courtdeni ed both t he h a b e a s p e titio n a n d a s u b s e q u e n t m o tio n fo r r e c o n s id e ra tio n o f th e d e c is io n . In Ju n e 2 0 0 5 , S u a re z filed a n a p p lica tio n in th is C o u rt fo r p e rm iss io n to file a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on. W e deni ed the appl i cat i on beca us e i tw as n o tb a s e d o n “ n e wl yd i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e ” o ra “ n e w ru l e o f c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l a w” u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 (1 ) a n d (2 ). See Suar ezv. Uni t ed Stat es , N o. 05- 8057, O r der , Sept . 14, 2005, A pl e. B r . , E x. 8. N ext , Suar ez f

i l ed i n t he di s tr i ctcourta R ul e 60( b) m ot i on chal l engi ng t he c o u rt ’s d is p o s itio n o f h is fir s t § 2 2 5 5 p e titio n . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) . T he di s tr i ctcourtr ej ect ed the mot i on and w e affi r m ed the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r es ol ut i on ofU nder18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) , a courtm aym odi fyt he t erm s of 1 i m pr i s onm enti f a defendantw ho has been s ent ence d to a t erm of i m pr i s onm entbas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange thathas s ubs equent l ybeen l ow ere d byt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . 994( o) , . . . aft er cons i der i ng the fa ct or s se tfor th i n s ect i on 3553( a) t o the ext entthat th e ya re a p p lica b le, if su c h a re d u c tio n is c o n sis ten t w ith a p p lica b le pol i cys t at ement s i s s ued byt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. -3- th e m a tte r. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Suar ez , N o . 0 5 -81 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 W L 9 9 1 1 1 5 (10 th C ir . A p ri l 17 , 2 0 0 6 ). Fi nal l y , i n N ovember2006, Suar ez f i l ed a mot i on t o m odi fyhi s s ent ence pur s uant t o 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . A ccor di ng t o the mot i on, Suar ez c l ai m ed 1 thatamendm ent s t o t he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes [U SSG ] m ake c l ear thathe s houl d nothave be en s ent ence d as a ca r eeroffe nderunder§ 4B 1. 2 and th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s u n c o n s titu tio n a l. T he di s tr i ctcourtr ej ect ed the mot i on. Fi r s t , i tfound thatSuar ez w as not s ent ence d undera G ui del i ne pr ovi s i on thathad bee n s ubs equent l ym odi fi ed byt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on under28 U . S. C . § 994( o) and thus rul ed that § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) w a s in a p p lica b le to S u a re z ’s s e n ten c e . S e c o n d , the c o u rt h e ld th a t a § 2255 m ot i on i s the exc l us i ve r emedyforchal l engi ng the val i di tyof a j udgm ent and s ent ence , unl es s i ti s i nadequa t e ori neffect i ve. Si nce Suar ez fai l ed t o m ake a s how i ng of how § 2255 w oul d be i nadequa t e ori neffect i ve, t he courtdet erm i ned thati thad no author i tyt o cons i derSuar ez’ s cl ai m s . T he courtt hen di r ect ed-4-

S u a re z to th e ru le s re g a rd in g th e filin g o f s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n s . T h is d e c is io n s e rv e s a s th e b a s is o f th is a p p e a l. II . A n a ly sis O n a p p e a l, S u a re z a sk s u s to re v e rse th e d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r o n a v a rie ty of gr ounds : ( 1) hi s s ent ence w as “err oneous ” and “ i l l egal ” as a mat t erof l aw and s o i s s ubj ectt o m odi fi cat i on under§ 3582( c) ( 2) ; ( 2) even i f § 3582( c) ( 2) does not appl y , the di s tr i ctcourts houl d have gr ant ed hi m r el i ef unde rt he “i nher ent p o w e rs” d o c trin e ; an d (3 ) h is s e n ten c e w a s im p ro p e rlye x e c u ted b e c a u se h e is b e in g h e ld ille g a lly. E v e n c o n s tru in g h is p ro s e filin g s lib e ra lly, s ee Andre w s v. Heaton , 483 F. 3d 1070, 1076 ( 10th C i r . 2007) , w e fi nd no j ur i s di ct i on t o m odi fy S u a re z ’s s e n te n c e u n d e r a n ys ta tu to ry g ra n t a n d d is m is s th is a p p e a l. See Uni t ed S ta tes v . B la c kw e ll , 81 F. 3d 945, 946 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( “B eca us e no congr es s i onal en ac tm en t auth o ri ze d the c o u rtto m o d ifyD efen d an t’ s sen tenc e . . . , the c o u rt lack ed juri sd ict ion to d o so . ”). Sect i on 3582(

c) ( 2) . T he di s tr i ctcourtdi d noterri n hol di ng § 3582( c) ( 2) inap p li ca b le t o S u are z’s se n tenc e. B ythe p lai n lang u ag e o f th e statute, a co u rt m aym od i fya sent ence o nlyi f i tw as based o n a “rang e t hat has su b se q u e n tly been l ow er ed bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . 994( o) . ” 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) ( emphasi s added) . A ccor di ngl y , a s ent ence m odi fi cat i on under§ 3582( c) ( 2) m us tbe pr emi s ed on a c hange t o the G ui del i nes m ade after t he d e fe n d a n t’ s s e n te n c in g . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . He rr e ra -G a rc ia , 422 F. 3d 1202,Ame n d me n t4 3 3 b e c a me e ffe c t i v e o n No v e mb e r1 , 1 9 9 1 . USS G Ap p . C, 2 V ol . 1, at304 ( N ov. 1, 2003) . A m endment461 w enti nt o effecton N ovember1, 1 9 9 2 . Id . a t 3 3 9 . A m e n d m e n t 5 6 8 b e c a m e o p e ra tiv e o n N o v e m b e r 1 , 1 9 9 7 . Id. at529. S u a re z a d m itte d th e s e fa c ts a s w e ll. See M e m. I n Su p p o r to f M o t i o n To R educe Sent ence Pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) at1 ( “Suar ez i s aw ar e that thes e a m en d m en ts are n o t sub seq u en t t o h is sen tenc ing . . . . ”). -5- 1 2 0 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Un itedS ta tes v . C h a v ez-S a la is , 3 3 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 0 , 1 1 7 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). S u a re z w a s s e n ten c e d a s a c a re e r o ffe n d e r p u rsu a n t to U S S G § 4 B 1 .2 in 2002. Suar ez i dent i fi ed thr ee a m endment s t o the U SSG thatw oul d “cl ar i fy ” that one of hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons coul d nots erve as a pr edi cat e t o a ca r eeroffe nder en h an ce m en t— A m en d m en ts 43 3 , 4 6 1 , an d 5 8 6 . A ll o f th ese A m en d m en ts w ere oper at i ve w el l befor e hi s s ent enci ng i n 2002, and § 3582( c) ( 2) does notconfe r 2 j uri sdi ct i on ov er chal l eng es t o a sentence ba sed on G uidel i nes alr eady in e ffe c t. T h e d istri ct co u rtw as, th ere fo re, co rrect t o d iscl aim juri sd ict ion o v er S u are z’s m o tio n b a s e d o n § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). Inherent Po w ers . Suar ez ne xtas s er t s t hatt he di s tr i ctcourts houl d have u se d its “ in h e re n t p o w e rs” to g ra n t h im re lief f ro m th e se n ten c e . B u t itis w e llsett led in this C ir cu itthat “[ a] d istri ct co u rtis au tho ri ze d to m o d ifya D efen d an t’ s s ent ence onl yi n s peci fi ed i ns t ance s w her e C ongr es s has expr es s l ygr ant ed the courtj ur i s di ct i on t o do s o. ” B la c kw e ll , 8 1 F . 3 d at 94 7 . T h u s, “a d istri ct co u rt does nothave i nher entpow ert o r es ent ence defe ndant s atanyt i m e. ” Id . a t 9 4 9 .-6-

A ccor di ngl y , Suar ez’ s “i nher entpow er s ” theoryoffe r s no gr ound forfede r al ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r h is s e n te n c e . Sect i on § 2241 . N ext , Suar ez s ugges t s thatthe di s tr i ctcourts houl d have c o n s tru e d h is m o tio n u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 . A g a in , § 2 2 4 1 w o u ld b e u n a v a ilin g . A § 2241 pet i t i on att acks the exe cut i on of a s ent ence and mustbe fi l ed i n the di s t r i ct w h e re th e p ri s o n e r i s c o n fin e d . B radsha w v. Story , 8 6 F . 3 d 1 6 4 , 1 6 6 (10 th C ir . 1996) . Y et , Suar ez doe s notchal l enge the exe cut i on of hi s s ent ence , r atherhe c la im s th a t th e s e n te n c e its e lf is in v a lid . I n or dert o att ack the “l egal i tyof det ent i on, ” a pr i s onerm us tfi l e a § 2255 p e titio n . Id . “The purpos e of s ect i on 2255 i s t o pr ovi de a met hod of det erm i ni ng the val i di tyof a j udgm entbyt he courtw hi ch i m pos ed the s ent ence , r atherthan by the courti n the di s tr i ctw her e the pr i s oneri s confi ned. ” Id . ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . U nl es s a § 2255 r emedyi s i nadequa t e ori neffect i ve, i ti s the exc l us i ve re m e d yfo r t e s tin g th e v a lid ity o f a ju d g m e n t a n d s e n te n c e . C ar avalho v. P ugh , 1 7 7 F . 3 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 7 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcour tthatSuar ez fai l ed t o s how how § 2255 w o u ld b e in a d e q u a te o r in e ffe c tiv e in h is c a se . A re m e d yu n d e r § 2 2 5 5 is i nadequa t e ori neffect i ve underl i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s — forexampl e, w hen the o rig in a l se n ten c in g c o u rt h a s b e e n a b o lish e d , the se n ten c in g c o u rt re f u se s to c o n s i d e rth e p e t i t i o n a l t o g e th e r , th e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r ti n o r d i n a t e l y d e l a ysS u a re z m a k e s th e n o v e l ar g u m e n t th a t th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in 3 R asul v. B ush , 5 4 2 U . S . 4 6 6 (20 0 4 ), r eca s t s our§ 2241 j ur i s prudence . B as ed on R as ul , Suar ez a s s ert s that§ 2241 gr ant s j ur i s di ct i on w her e a “ per s on orpr i s oner is b e in g h e ld in v io latio n o f th e C o n stitu tio n o r la w s o f th e U n ited S tate s.” A p lt. O peni ng B r . at3( d) ( ci t i ng R as ul , 542 U . S. at483–84 ( “Pet i t i oner s cont end that theyar e bei ng hel d i n fede r al cus t odyi n vi ol at i on of the l aw s of the U ni t ed S t at es. N o p artyqu est i on s the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s j uri sdi ct i on ov er pet i t i on ers ' cus t odi ans . Sect i on 2241, byi t s t erm s , r equi r es nothi ng m or e. ”) ( i nt ernal c ita tio n s o m itte d )) . Y e t, b yits o w n te rm s , R a su l a p p l i e s o n l yt o t h e “ n a rr o w” q u e stio n o f

th e “ leg a lityo f

th e d e ten tio n o f

fo re ig n n a tio n a ls c a p tu re d a b ro a d in connec t i on w i th hos t i l i t i es and i ncar cer at ed att he G uant anamo B ayN aval B as e, C uba. ” Id . at470. T he ene m ycombat ant s i n the ca s e w er e nots ubj ectt o a fede r al s ent ence i m pos ed byfede r al court s t hatcoul d be cha l l enged pur s uantt o § 2 2 5 5 . S u a re z , o n th e o th e r h a n d , is a fe d e ra l p riso n e r se n ten c e d p u rsu a n t to fe d e ra l la w w ith § 2 2 5 5 s till a v ia b le re m e d y . A c c o rd in g ly, R a su l is in a p p o site to h is c a s e . -7- cons i der at i on of the mot i on, orw hen no s i ngl e courtcan gr antcompl et e r el i ef. See Caravalho , 177 F. 3d at1178. T he mer e fa ctthatr el i ef unde ra pr evi ous § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n w a s d e n ied is n o t su fficie n t to d e m o n stra te th a t itis a n in a d e q u a te re m e d y . See Brads haw , 8 6 F .3 d a t 1 6 7 . B e c a u se § 2 2 5 5 w o u ld n o t b e in a d e q u a te ori neffect i ve i n thi s cas e, § 2241 w oul d be an i nappr opr i at e j ur i s di ct i onal gr ant for cons i der i ng hi s s ent ence . 3 F inally , the d istri ct co u rtd id n o t err i n d ec li n ing to rec h ara cterize S u are z’s m ot i on as a § 2255 pet i t i on. I ns t ead, t he courtdi r ect ed Suar ez t o the pr ovi s i ons forfi l i ng a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 pet i t i on. A E D PA perm i t s s econd or s ucce s s i ve pet i t i on “i n veryl i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Ke lly , 235S e c tio n 2 2 5 5 o f T itl e 2 8 p ro v id e s in re lev a n t p a rt: 4 A s econd ors ucce s s i ve mot i on m us tbe ce r t i fi ed as pr ovi ded i n s ect i on 2244 bya pane l of the appr opr i at e courtof appe al s t o cont ai n- (1) new l ydis cov ered evidence that . . . w ou l d be suffici ent t o est abli sh b y c lea r an d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t n o re a so n a b le fa c tfin d e r w o u ld have found t he movantgui l tyof the offens e; or ( 2) a new rule o f const i tut i onal l aw , m ade r etr oact i ve t o cas es on c o llate ra l re v iew b y th e S u p re m e C o u rt, th a t w a s p r e v io u sly unavai l abl e. -8- F. 3d 1238, 1241 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . O nl yt hi s C our tm ayauthor i ze the 4 c o m m e n c e m e n t o f

a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 p e titio n . See 28 U . S. C . §§ 2255 and 2244( b) ( 3) ( A ) . Si nce the di s tr i ctcourtatt empt ed t o poi ntSuar ez i n the r i ght d ire c tio n re g a rd in g § 2 2 5 5 p e tit io n s a n d S u a re z m a k e s n o m e n tio n o f § 2 2 5 5 in hi s br i ef t o us , w e ca n onl yconcl ude thatSuar ez di d notw i s h t o have hi s m ot i on r echa r act er i zed a s a § 2255 pet i t i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e al s o decl i ne t o cons true th is a p p e a l as a n im p lied a p p lica tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b )(3 )(A ) fo r le a v e to file 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 in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . See Peas e v. K l i nger , 1 1 5 F .3 d 7 6 3 , 7 6 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). B u t eve n if S u are z’s p eti ti o n w ere cons trued as an appl i cat i on under§ 2255, he has s how n nothi ng thatw oul d m eet i t s r e q u i r e me n t s o f

n e w e v i d e n c e o ra r e tr o a c t i v e c h a n g e i n l a w.-9- I I I . C oncl usi on F in d in g n o ju risd ictio n to m o d if yS u a re z ’s s e n ten c e , w e D IS M IS S th is a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge