T he ca s e i s unani m ous l yor der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum entpur s uant * to F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ) a n d 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is 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, and col 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 ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### Ju n e8,2006 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 KE NNE T H L . YOR K, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. J UANI T A A. M c CU L L E Y, R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 1395 ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - C V - 1 2 5 0 - Z L W)

(D . C o lo .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M CKAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es.

K enneth L . Y or k, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s t he di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce of hi s appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 2241. B eca us e Y or k i s a fe der al pr i s onerand thi s pr ocee di ng ari ses unde r § 224 1, he d oes no tneed a cert i fi cat e of a pp eal abil i ty . S ee M cInt osh v . U n i t e d S t a t e s P a r o l e C o m m ' n , 1 1 5 F . 3 d 8 0 9 , 8 1 0 n . 1 ( 1 0 th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) . We r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ' s deci s i on de novo, s ee Patt er s on v. K now l es , 162 F. 3d- 2 -

574, 575 ( 10th C i r . 1998) , and A F F I R M fors ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas ons s et fo rth b yth e d istric t co u rt. Y or k fi l ed a pe t i t i on under§ 2241 thatfai l ed t o i dent i fyanycons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons orfac t s gi vi ng r i s e t o a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. A m agi s tr at e j udge or der ed Y or k t o fi l e an a m ended ha beas corpus pet i t i on cl ar i fy i ng hi s cl ai m s . T he d istric t co u rt re v iew e d th e a m e n d e d p e tit io n a n d fo u n d th a t Y o rk a g a in fa iled to al l ege w hi ch of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s had bee n vi ol at ed and how t heyhad bee n v io la te d . H a v in g re v ie w e d th e re c o rd , th is d e te rm in a tio n is c le a rl yc o rr e c t. A lth o u g h h e d o e s a rg u e th a t th e U n ited S tate s D e p a rtm e n t o f D e fe n se n e e d s to acc eptr es pons i bi l i tyforhi s pr evi ous convi ct i ons , buti s w i l l i ng t o conce de that the C entr al I nt el l i gence A gencyw as “notm uch of a pr obl em, ” Y or k’ s pet i t i on, even w hen cons trued l i ber al l ybeca us e he i s pr ocee di ng pr o s e, does noteven hi nt atw hatcons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons m ayhave t aken pl ace w i th r egar d t o the exec ut i on of hi s s ent ence . A s s uch, t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on di s m i s s i ng the peti t i on i s AFF I RM ED . Fur ther , beca us e Y or k does notr ai s e “a r eas oned, nonfr i vol ous ar gum enton t he l aw and fa ct s i n s upportof the i s s ues r ai s ed on appea l , ” M cI nt os h, 115 F. 3d at812, w e DE NY h i s mo t i o n t o p r o c e e d i n fo r ma p a u p e r i s . H i s l e t t e r s , c o n s tru e d a s m o t i o n s , fi l e d M a r c h 6 , M a r c h 1 4 , a n d M a y- 3 -

22, 2006, ar e al s o DENI ED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge