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 Appellate 

Procedure, William P. Barr is substituted for Jefferson B. Sessions, III, as the 

respondent in this action. 

**  In accordance with Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, Kevin K. McAleenan is substituted for Kirstjen Nielsen, as the respondent 

in this action. 

*** In accordance with Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, Lansing W. Tyler is substituted for Jeffrey D. Lynch, as the respondent in 

this action. 

**** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 23, 2019

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, MATHESON, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Kevin Harrison is in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE). Appearing pro se, he appeals the district court’s denial of his 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

we affirm.1

Mr. Harrison filed the § 2241 habeas petition to challenge his immigration 

detention. After multiple orders to cure pleading and form deficiencies, and, in 

particular, to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly violated, Mr. Harrison 

filed an amended § 2241 petition on July 13, 2018. It explained that ICE first 

detained him in December 2014. He bonded out in March 2015, but after pleading no 

contest to disorderly conduct in Las Vegas in April 2017, his bond was revoked, and 

he was detained again. The district court construed Mr. Harrison’s amended § 2241 

petition as attempting to allege a double jeopardy violation based on his detention in 

2017 for the same offense as his original detention in 2014. The district court denied 

the amended petition. 

 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 Because Harrison is in immigration custody, he does not need a certificate of 

appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2241 petition. Aguilera v. 

Kirkpatrick, 241 F.3d 1286, 1291-92 (10th Cir. 2001). 
3 

Mr. Harrison filed a notice of appeal to this court and a motion to reconsider 

with the district court. This appeal was abated pending the district court’s ruling on 

the motion to reconsider. In his motion, Mr. Harrison referenced cases involving due 

process challenges to prolonged immigration detention. He did not address the 

district court’s double jeopardy ruling. The district court denied reconsideration. It 

noted that Mr. Harrison may be able to pursue a habeas claim raising a due process 

challenge to his detention under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001), but he 

had not provided adequate factual allegations to support such a claim in this case. 

Upon notification that the district court had denied reconsideration, the abatement of 

this appeal was lifted. 

We have carefully reviewed Mr. Harrison’s opening brief and liberally 

construed his arguments. See Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1201 n.2 (10th Cir. 

2010). Mr. Harrison has not addressed the district court’s construction of his 

amended § 2241 petition as asserting a double jeopardy violation or the district 

court’s denial of his habeas petition. An appellant must “explain what was wrong 

with the reasoning that the district court relied on in reaching 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 court’s decision was wrong waives any 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 district court and, because Mr. Harrison has not 

raised any arguments challenging the order on appeal, we deny his motion for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis. See DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 

(10th Cir. 1991) (noting that appellant seeking leave to proceed ifp must show “the 

existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts 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 intending to challenge the 

disposition of a motion to reconsider, “must file a notice of appeal, or an amended 

notice of appeal—in compliance with Rule 3(c)—within the time prescribed by 

[Rule 4(a)]”). Nor does he mention 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) (treating 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.