A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a 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. 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 

### N ove m b e r8,2006 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 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- 2137 v. ( D . N ew M exi co) U L Y S S E S H A R P E R , J R .,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D . C . N os . C I V - 06- 0007 J C / W PL and CR- 9 6 - 2 2 0 J C)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , HA RTZ , and TY M KOVI CH , C irc u it Judg es. U l y s s es S. H arperw as convi ct ed i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he D i s tr i ctof N ew M exi co on a c har ge of c ons pi r acyt o pos s es s m ethamphet ami ne w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te . W e a ffir m e d h is c o n v ic tio n o n N o v e m b e r 1 6 , 1 9 9 8 . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Har

per , N o. 97- 2153, 1998 W L 794972. O n J anuary3, 2006, he fi l ed a mot i on i n t he di s tr i ctcourtent i t l ed “Pet i t i oner ’ s M ot i on t o C orr ect-2-

Sent ence Pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 60( b) ( 1) ( 6) M i s t ake, Fr aud, I nadvert ence , E xcus abl e N egl ect . G onzal es v. C r os by , ___ U . S. ___, N o. 04- 6432, J une 23, 2005. ” The m ot i on chal l enges hi s s ent ence as contr aryt o Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). T he di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l ydeci ded thatthe mot i on i s nota pr oper R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n b u t r a th e r a m o tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Nels on , N o . 0 6 -60 7 1 , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 8 4 8 1 1 3 (10 th C ir . O ct. 6 , 2 0 0 6 ). T h e c o u rt a lso c o rre c tlyn o ted th a t “di s tr i ctcourt s s houl d notr echa r act er i ze a m ot i on purpor t edl ym ade unders om e otherrul e as a mot i on m ade unde r§ 2255 unl es s ( a) the m ovant , w i th know l edge of the pot ent i al adver s e cons equenc es of s uch r echa r act er i zat i on, agr ees t o have the mot i on s o r echa r act er i zed, or( b) the courtfi nds t hat , notw i ths t andi ng i t s des i gnat i on, the m ot i on s houl d be cons i der ed as m ade unde r§ 2255 beca us e of the n a tu re o f

th e re lief

so u g h t, an d o ffe rs th e m o v a n t th e o p p o rtu n ityto w ith d ra w th e m o tio n ra th e r t h a n h a v e it s o re c h a ra c te ri z e d .” R . D oc. 2 at2 ( M em. O p. & O r der , Feb. 7, 2006) ( quot i ng Un itedS ta tes v . Ke lly , 2 3 5 F .3 d 1 2 3 8 , 1 2 4 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 )) (f u rt h e r i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). T he di s tr i ctcourtt hen obs erved, how ever , thatr echa r act er i zat i on w oul d not p reju d ic e M r. H a rp e r b e c a u s e h is m o tio n w a s u n tim e ly. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Ma rtin , 3 5 7 F .3 d 1 1 9 8 , 1 2 0 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). It the re fo re re c h a ra c ter ize d h is m o t i o n a s o n e u n d e r§ 2 2 5 5 a n d d i s m i s s e d th e m o t i o n w i th p r ej u d i c e a s u n t i m e l y. M r. H a rp e r c a n a p p e a l th e d istric t co u rt’s r u lin g o n lyif w e g ra n t a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty( C O A ) . See 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) . H e i s ent i t l ed t o a-3-

C O A o n ly if

re a s o n a b le ju ri s ts c o u ld d e b a te th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s ru lin g . See Slack v. McD ani el , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ). N o rea so n ab le j u ri st co u ld d eb ate the d istri ct co u rt ’s ruli n g . W e the refo re DE NY Mr . Ha rp e r ’ s r e q u e s tfo ra CO A a n d DI S M I S S th e a p p e a l . We a l s o DE NY hi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge