UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ KEVIN K. HARRISON, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General;  KEVIN K. McALEENAN, Acting Secretary of Department of Homeland Security; ** LANSING W. TYLER , U.S. ICE Field Officer Director for the Colorado Field Office; *** WARDEN OF IMMIGRATION DETENTION FACILITY, Respondents - Appellees. No. 18-1314 (D.C. No. 1:18- CV-01180-LTB) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT  

 In accordance with Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appel late Procedure, William P. Barr is sub stituted for Jefferson B. Sess ions, III, as the respondent in this action.

**  In accordance with Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appel late Procedure, Kevin K. McAleenan is substituted for Kirstjen Niels en, as the respondent in this action.

*** In accordance with Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appel late Procedure, Lansing W. Tyler is s ubstituted for Jeffrey D. Lynch , as the respondent in this action.

**** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel ha s determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in t he determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is t herefore ordered submitted without oral ar gument. This order and judgme nt is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res j udicata, and collateral FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### April 23, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 ________________ _________________ Before HARTZ , MATHESON , and CARSON , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Kevin Harrison is in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Custom s Enforcement (ICE). Appearing pr o se, he appeals the district c ourt’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petiti on. Exercising jurisdiction unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 1 Mr. Harrison filed the § 2241 ha beas petition to challenge his immigration detention. After multiple order s to cure pleading and form def iciencies, and, in particular, to identify the sp ecific constitutional right alleg edly violated, Mr. Harrison filed an amended § 2241 petition on July 13, 2018. It explaine d that ICE first detained him in December 2014. H e bonded out in March 2015, bu t after pleading no contest to disorderly conduct in Las Vegas in April 2017, his b ond was revoked, and he was detained again. The distr ict court construed Mr. Harris on’s amended § 2241 petition as attempting to allege a double jeopar dy violation ba sed on his detention in 2017 for the same off ense as his original detention in 2014. T he district court denied the amended petition.

estoppel. It may be cited, howev er, for its persuasive value c onsistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 a nd 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1 Because Harrison is in immigra tion custody, he does not need a certificate of appealability to appeal the distr ict court’s denial of his § 22 41 petition. Aguilera v. Kirkpatrick , 241 F.3d 1286, 1291- 92 (10th Cir. 2001).3 Mr. Harrison filed a notice of a ppeal to this court and a motio n to reconsider with the district court. This appeal was abated pending the di strict court’s ruling on the motion to reconsider. In his motion, Mr. Harrison referenc ed cases involving due process challenges to prolonged immigration detention. He did not address the district court’s double jeopardy ruling. The district court de nied reconsideration. It noted that Mr. Harrison may be abl e to pursue a habeas claim ra ising a due process challenge to his detention under Zadvydas v. Davis , 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001), but he had not provided adequate factu al allegations to support such a claim in this case. Upon notification that the district court had denied reconsider ation, the abatement of this appeal was lifted. We have carefully reviewed Mr . Harrison’s openi ng brief and lib erally construed his arguments. See Garza v. Davis , 596 F.3d 1198, 1201 n.2 (10th Cir. 2010). Mr. Harrison has not addre ssed the district court’s con struction of his amended § 2241 petition as asse rting a double jeopardy violatio n or the district court’s denial of his habeas p etition. An appellant must “expl ain what was wrong with the reasoning that the dis trict court relied on in reachin g its decision.” Nixon v. City & Cty. of Denver , 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015). Mr. Harrison’s failure to explain why the district cour t’s decision was wrong waives a ny argument for reversal. See Jordan v. Bowen , 808 F.2d 733, 736 (10th Cir. 1987) (noting that issues not raised in the opening brief are waived). 2

2 Mr. Harrison did not file a new or amended notice of appeal to bring the district court’s denial of his motion to reconsider within the scope of this appeal.4 We affirm the judgment of the d istrict court and, because Mr. H arrison has not raised any arguments challenging the order on appeal, we deny h is motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

. See DeBardeleben v. Quinlan , 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991) (noting that a ppellant seeking leave to procee d ifp must show “the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivo lous argument on the law and f acts in support of the issues raised on appeal”).

Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4 )(B)(ii) (providing that a party intendin g to challenge the disposition of a motion to recons ider, “must file a notice of a ppeal, or an amended notice of appeal—in compliance w ith Rule 3(c)—within the time p rescribed by [Rule 4(a)]”). Nor does he ment ion his motion to reconsider or the district court’s order denying reconsideration in his opening brief such that it could be considered the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal. See Kimzey v. Flamingo Seismic Sols. Inc. , 696 F.3d 1045, 1050 (10th Cir. 2012) (tr eating opening brief as functional equivalent of notice of appeal because it, inter alia , referred to the order challenged on appeal). Accordingly, we do not review the district court’s denial of Mr. Harrison’s motion to reconsider.