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 t he 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 

### M ar c h 16,2007 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, N o. 06- 4292 v. ( D . of U t ah) RO BE RT W. M ONT GOMER Y,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D . C . N os . 2: 05- C V - 1049- T S and 2: 03 - CR - 80 1- TS)

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. **

R o b e rt W ill iam M o n tg o m e ryw a s c h a rg e d in a o n e -c o u n t in d ictm e n t w ith pos s es s i on of thr ee f

i r earm s and amm uni t i on bya convi ct ed fe l on i n vi ol at i on of 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ). T h e c h arg es a rose fro m an inv esti g ati o n into h is w ife’s s ui ci de w hi ch r evea l ed thats he us ed one of t he fi r earm s t o ki l l her s el f.-2-

A ft erM ont gom erypl eade d gui l ty , the U ni t ed St at es ats ent enci ng m oved fora four - l evel upw ar d departur e underU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i ne §5K 2. 1 beca us e M ont gom ery ’ s w i fe’ s death r es ul t ed fr om hi s unl aw ful pos s es s i on of fi r earm s . Sever al w i t nes s es t es t i fi ed atthe J une 10, 2004 hear i ng on t he governm ent ’ s m ot i on, and bas ed on thatt es t i m onythe di s tr i ctcour tfound M ont gom erycontr i but ed t o hi s w i fe’ s s ui ci de bec aus e he tr eat ed hervi ol ent l yand interfe red w ith h er treatm en t fo r de p ression . C o n seq u en tl y , the d istri ct co u rt g ra n te d th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s m o tio n a n d im p o s e d a tw o -l e v e l u p w a rd d e p a rt u re . T w o day s l at er , t he Supr eme C our tdeci ded B lakel y v. Was hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) . I n l i ghtof B la ke ly , M ont gom erym oved forr econs i der at i on of the d istri ct co u rt ’s de cisi o n to g ran t an u p w ard d ep arture. T h e d istri ct co u rt deci ded t o “cont i nue t o appl yt he s ent enci ng gui del i nes , butw i thoutaddi t i onal fa ct-find ing b ythe C o u rtthat m igh t r esu ltin an u p w ard en h an ce m en t or d ep arture t hatw oul d r es ul ti n a s ent ence above thatw hi ch w oul d ot herw i s e appl yundert he gui del i nes , abs entt hos e fi ndi ngs . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Montgom er y, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1271 ( D . U t ah 2004) . T he courts peci fi cal l ynot ed thatthe fa ct s r egar di ng M ont gom ery ’ s t r eatm entof hi s w i fe “ w er e i m pr oper l yfound bythi s C our tand m us tbe vac at ed. ” Id. at 12 7 2 . A cc o rdin g ly , the c o u rtv ac ated the u p w ard departur e or derand s ent ence d M ont gom eryt o 57 m onths , the t op of the G u id e lin e s ra n g e . Id . a t 1 2 7 2

– 7 3 .-3-

B o th M o n tg o m e ry a n d th e U n ite d S ta te s a p p e a le d th e s e n te n c e . M ont gom ery ’ s appea l w as di s m i s s ed on hi s ow n m ot i on on J une 27, 2005. I n t he U ni t ed St at es ’ appea l , w e r ever s ed M ont gom ery ’ s s ent ence and r emanded forr ese n ten c in g b e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt h a d c o n c lu d e d th a t B la ke ly pr ecl uded i tfr om depart i ng upw ar d fr om t he G ui del i nes r ange. United S tates v. Mon tgo m ery , 439 F . 3 d 1 2 6 0 , 1 2 6 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T o the c o n tr ary , w e n o ted u n d er Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ), that d istri ct co u rt s retain d iscreti o n to d ep art upw ar d ordow nw ar d fr om t he G ui del i nes r ange, s ubj ectt o r evi ew for re a s o n a b le n e s s b a s e d o n th e fa c to rs in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). Mon tgo m ery , 439 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 2 . O n re m a n d in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 6 , M o n tg o m e ryw a s a g a in se n ten c e d to 5 7 m o n th s . P ri o r t o rem an d , M o n tgo m erym ad e se v era l fi li n g s in the d istri ct co u rt . In A ugus tand D ece m ber2005, w hi l e hi s cas e w as on appea l , M ont gom erys ubm i t t ed a s er i es of l ett er s acc us i ng w i t nes s es atthe J une 10, 2004 hear i ng of per j ur yand req u esti n g that the c o u rtco m p el a third p artyto relea se h is de ce ase d w ife’s m edi cal r ecor ds t o hi m . T he courtcons trued M ont gom ery ’ s l et t er s as an att ack o n h is sen tenc e u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 an d o p en ed a c ivil ca se fo r M o n tgo m ery to p u rsu e th e m a tter. T h e c o u rt n o tifie d M o n tg o m e ryo f its a c tio n u n d e r o u r ru le t hata di s t r i ctcour tm aynotcons true a pr o s e l i t i gant ’ s m ot i on as a r eques tfor r el i ef unde r§ 2255 w i t houtw arni ng the l i t i gantaboutthe cons equenc es and g iv in g th e litig a n t a n o p p o rt u n ity to w ith d ra w o r a m e n d th e m o tio n . See Uni t edT he co urtadd i t i on al l yden i ed M on t go m ery ’s requestt o o rdert he rel ease 1 o f h is w ife ’s m e d ica l re c o rd s. T h e c o u rt n o ted th a t th e re c o rd s w e re irre lev a n t to anyat t ack on M ont gom ery ’ s s ent ence s i nce he rdeath w as nota fa ct orcons i der ed in re-se n tenc ing . T h e c o u rtfu rth erm o re referred to ind icati o n s at M o n tgo m ery ’s 2006 r e- s ent enci ng t hatM ont gom erycoul d obt ai n the r eques t ed medi cal r ecor ds dir ect l yfrom t he h ospit al . In fact , M on t go m ery ’s S eptem ber 1, 20 06 “R equ est fora C ont empt O r der ” r efe r ence s var i ous m edi cal r ecor ds , and M ont gom erydoes n o t r e n e w h is re q u e s t r e g a rd in g m e d ic a l r e c o rd s o n a p p e a l. -4- S ta tes v . Ma rtin , 357 F. 3d 1198, 1199 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . M ont gom eryr es ponded byw i t hdr aw i ng hi s cons t rued § 2255 mot i on and r eques t i ng thatthe ci vi l cas e be di s m i s s ed. Pur s uantt o M ont gom ery ’ s r eques t , the di s tr i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed the ci vi l cas e. 1 T hi s i s an appe al fr om t hatci vi l cas e, N o. 2: 05- cv- 01049- T S. W e not e that M ont gom eryi s al s o pur s i ng an appe al fr om hi s s ent ence i n cr i m i nal cas e N o. 2 :0 3 -c r-8 0 1 -T S in th is c o u rt. See United S tates v. Mon tgo m ery , N o. 06- 4300 (1 0 th C ir. ap p e a l d o c k e ted D e c . 7 , 2 0 0 6 ). T h e sin g le is su e M o n tg o m e ryra ise s in t hi s ci vi l appea l conce r ns t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r efus al t o hol d a w i tnes s i n cont empt forper j ur y . B eca us e thati s s ue i s m or e pr oper l ybefor e the courti n the cr i m i nal a p p e a l, w e d ism iss th e in sta n t ap p e a l. T h e iss u e s M o n tg o m e ryra ise s in th is a p p e a l d e v e lo p e d in th e c o n tex t o f h is cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng. T he t es t i m onyM ont gom eryal l eges w as per j ur ed w as o ffere d at th e Ju n e 1 0 , 2 0 0 4 h ea ri n g in h is cri m inal ca se. A lth o u g h M o n tgo m ery fi l ed hi s i ni t i al pr o s e r eques tfora cont emptor derunderboth hi s ci vi l and cri m i nal cas e nu m bers, his cou nsel fi l ed a si m i l ar m oti on un der the cri m i nal cas eI n i t s or derdi s m i s s i ng t he ci vi l cas e, t he courtr ei t er at ed thati thad 2 di s pos ed of the mot i on forcont empt att he r e- s ent enci ng hear i ng. -5- n u m b er o n N o v em b er 3 , 2 0 0 6 . T h e c o u rtd en ied th e m o ti o n at M o n tgo m ery ’s cr i m i nal r e- s ent enci ng hear i ng on N ovember 6, 2006. M ont gom ery ’ s D ocket i ng 2 S tat em en t i n the c ri m inal ap p ea l, fil ed o n M arc h 6 , 2 0 0 7 , refers to M o n tgo m ery ’s a lle g a tio n s o f

p e rj u ry a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s ru lin g o n th e m o tio n fo r c o n te m p t. T her efor e, M ont gom erym aypr oper l yr ai s e i s s ues s ur r oundi ng the mot i on for c o n tem p t in h is c rim in a l ap p e a l. M o n tg o m e ry ’s fili n g s in th e in sta n t ap p e a l ra ise n o iss u e s w ith re sp e c t to h is c iv il ca se . M o n tg o m e ry ’s r e q u e st fo r a C e rtific a te o f A p p e a lab ili tyis t h e r e fo r e DE NI E D, a n d t h i s a p p e a l i s DI S M I S S E D. 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