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 e s e a p p e a ls . See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a)(2); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase s are th e re fo re o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. T he H onor abl e J ohn L . K ane, Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct ** C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 

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

### O c t ob e r25,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT LAV ERN BERRY HI LL, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. ED W A RD EV A N S, R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N os . 04- 6392 & 05- 6038

AP P EA LS F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E WE S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

( D. C. No . CI V- 9 5 - 7 0 0 - T) S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: * R aym ond P. M oor e, Feder al Publ i c D efe nder ; H ow ar d A . Pi ncus , A s s i s t ant F e d e ra l P u b lic D e fe n d e r, D e n v e r, C o lo ra d o fo r A p p e llan t. W . A . D r ew E dm onds on, A t t orneyG ener al of O kl ahoma; D i ane L. Sl ayt on, A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al , O kl ahoma C i ty , O kl ahoma forA ppel l ee. B efor e BROR BY and EBEL , C i r cui tJ udges , and KANE , D i s tr i ctJ udge. **H e fi l ed a pr evi ous pet i t i on i n 1992, r ai s i ng an appe l l at e del aycl ai m under 1 Har r is v. C hampi on , 938 F. 2d 1062 ( 10th C i r . 1991) . T he di s tr i ctcourtdi d not treatthis Ha rr is pet i t i on as a pr i orappl i cat i on forpurpos es of s econd or s u c c e s s iv e p ri n c ip le s . See ge ner al l y Har r is v. C hampi on , 4 8 F . 3 d 1 1 2 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) (Ha rris II

I) ( s ett i ng outrul es fort r eatm entof Ha rr is pet i t i ons unders econd o r suc ce ssive p ri n ciples). M r. B erryh il l’ s o ther tw o p ri o r pe ti ti o n s w ere di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o exhaus ts t at e r emedi es , and thus di d notcountas pr i or a p p lic a tio n s fo r p u rp o s e o f a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e a n a lysis . See Moor e v. Schoem an , 2 8 8 F . 3 d 1 2 3 1 , 1 2 3 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). -2- EBEL , C i r cui tJ udge. T hes e appe al s ar i s e fr om M r . B erryhi l l ’ s four th fede r al habea s pet i t i on s eeki ng r el i ef f

r om hi s s t at e courtl ar cenyconvi ct i ons . I n the t en y ear s s i nce the 1 d i s tr i c tc o u r te n t e r e d i t s fi n a l h a b e a s j u d g me n ti n t h i s c a s e , t h e c a s e h a s c o me b e fo re u s s ix tim e s. W e p re v io u slyfo u n d it n e c e ss a ryto sa n c tio n M r. B e rryh ill forfi l i ng s ucce s s i ve appl i cat i ons t o fi l e s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i ons , a s t ep that di d notfor es t al l hi s curr entfi l i ng. C as e N o. 04- 6392 i s M r . B erryhi l l ’ s appea l fr om the deni al of hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, br oughti n hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 habea s c a se . C a se N o . 0 5 -6 0 3 8 is h is a p p e a l f ro m th e d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g h im in fo rm a p a u p e ris (I F P ) sta tu s o n a p p e a l.-3- F act ual and P roce dural H i s t ory In 1 9 9 0 , M r. B e rryh ill w a s c o n v icte d in O k lah o m a sta te c o u rt o f tw o c o u n ts of l ar cenyfr om a r et ai l er , aft erpr i orconvi ct i on of tw o orm or e fe l oni es . H e w as s ent ence d t o t w entyy ear s on eac h count , t o be s erved cons ecut i vel y . T he O kl ahoma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s ( O C C A ) aff i r m ed hi s convi ct i ons . T he s t a t e d i s tr i c tc o u r td e n i e d h i s a p p l i c a t i o n fo rp o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f, a n d t h e OCCA a ffirm e d th is d e n ial. O n M ay8, 1995, M r . B erryhi l l fi l ed hi s m os tr ece ntfede r al habea s pet i t i on i n the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma. T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed hi s pet i t i on on J u ly 9 , 1 9 9 6 . H e a p p e a le d . T h is c o u rt d e n ie d C O A a n d d is m is s e d h is a p p e a l. B er r yhi l lv. E vans , N o. 96- 6264 ( 10th C i r . Feb. 11, 1997) . O n A pr i l 20, 1998, J une 18, 2002, and N ovember18, 2002, w e deni ed hi s r eques t s forauthor i zat i on t o fil e secon d o r s uccessi ve § 22 54 peti t i on s. A ft er M r. B erryhil l ’s fou rth reque st forauthor i zat i on w e i m pos ed the fol l ow i ng s anct i on: “anyfur therappl i cat i ons fi l ed byM r . B err yhi l l forl eave t o fi l e addi t i onal col l at er al att acks on hi s 1990 O kl ahoma convi ct i ons forl ar cenyw i l l be dee m ed deni ed on the thi r t i eth day unl es s thi s courtot herw i s e or der s . ” M r . B err yhi l l then att empt ed t o fi l e i n thi s courta mot i on t o r eca l l our ma n d a t e i s s u e d J u n e 1 8 , 2 0 0 2 . Th e c l e r k o f c o u r tr e tu rn e d th e mo t i o n t o h i m, unfi l ed. H e r efi l ed hi s m ot i on i n di s tr i ctcourt . I n hi s m ot i on t o r eca l l t he m andat e, M r . B err yhi l l al l eged thata fr aud had be en comm i t t ed on the fe der al-4-

habea s court . T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed the mot i on, r eas oni ng t hati thad no a u th o rityto d ire c t th e T e n th C irc u it t o re c a ll i ts m a n d a te, a n d th a t, i n a n ye v e n t, th e h a b e a s c a se in th e d istric t co u rt h a d b e e n c lo se d fo r y e a rs a n d M r. B e rryh ill w a s n o t a u th o ri z e d to file a d d itio n a l p le a d in g s in th a t c a s e . M r. B e rryh ill re sp o n d e d w ith (1 ) a m o tio n fo r re c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e d e n ial, and ( 2) a mot i on r eques t i ng t he di s tr i ctcour tt o cons true hi s m ot i on t o r eca l l the m andat e as a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on. T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed both m ot i ons . H e then fi l ed hi s “R ul e 60( b) - ( 3) - ( 6) M ot i on, ” aga i n r ai s i ng al l egat i ons of fr aud on the s ta te a n d fe d e ra l c o u rt s . I n both hi s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw the mandat e and hi s 60( b) - ( 3) - ( 6) m ot i on, M r. B e rryh ill a ss e rte d th a t f ra u d o c c u rre d in re g a rd to h is o rig in a l se n ten c e , h is di r ectappea l , and the habe as pr ocee di ngs . W i th r egar d t o hi s di r ectappea l , he a ss e rte d “ f

ra u d ” b a se d o n th e d istric t co u rt’s a lleg e d lac k o f ju risd ictio n to enhanc e hi s s ent ence underthe habi tual offe nderpr ovi s i ons . H e al s o as s er t ed that o n D e c e m b e r 2 7 , 1 9 9 0 , h is c o u rt -a p p o in te d c o u n s e l, “ o r s o m e u n k n o w n a tto rn e y ,” fi l ed a “ fr audul entappea l outof t i m e” of M r . B erryhi l l ’ s convi ct i ons w i th the O C C A . T he appe al w as al l egedl y“fr audul ent , ” bec aus e no ac tual not i ce of appea l had bee n fi l ed t o i nves tt he O C C A w i th j ur i s di ct i on. N otw i ths t andi ng t he O C C A ’s d isp o sitio n o f h is a p p e a l o n th e m e rits, M r. B e rryh ill c o n ten d e d th a t h is e n t i r e s t a t e c o u r td i r e c ta p p e a l p r o c e e d i n g w a s th e r e s u l to f a m a s s i v e c o n s p i r a c y, i nvol vi ng the s t at e court s , the di s tr i ctatt orney , the publ i c defender ’ s offi ce, and-5-

th e O k lah o m a sta te a tto rn e yg e n e ra l’s o ffice , to denyhi m an appe al . T hi s al l eged fr aud w as fur thercompounded w hen hi s cour t - appoi nt ed att or neyon di r ectappea l al l egedl ypr ovi ded hi m w i th i neffect i ve as s i s t ance i n connec t i on w i th the i s s ues th a t w e re a c tu a lly ra is e d a n d d e c id e d in th e a p p e a l. A s to th e h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g s, M r. B e rryh ill a ss e rte d th a t h e b ro u g h t h is fede r al habea s pet i t i on as a “r eac t i on t o the cons pi r acycomm i t t ed bythe above named O kl ahoma st at e off i ci al s . ” R . , doc. 51, at3. T he O kl ahoma A t t orney G e n e ra l “a llo w e d th is P e tit io n e r to file th e c a se a t b a r in fe d e ra l co u rt, w h e n in fac t , he knew ors houl d have know n thatappel l [at e] j ur i s di ct i on had neve rbeen i nvoked i n thi s cas e atbar . [s i c] ” Id . A ppar ent l y , the over al l ai m of the al l eged cons pi r acyw as t o caus e M r . B erryhi l l t o us e up hi s s i ngl e cha nce t o fi l e a di r ect appea l i n s t at e courtand a § 2254 ha beas pet i t i on i n fede r al cour t , w i thoutr ai s i ng th e is s u e s h e w is h e d to ra is e . H i s al l egat i ons of fr aud ar e thus apt l ys um m ar i zed i n the fol l ow i ng l anguage fr om hi s 60( b) - ( 3) - ( 6) m ot i on: T he O kl [ahoma] A t t orneyG ener al and thi s Pet i t i oner ’ s appel l [at e] att orneycons pi r ed t ogetherand ca m e i nt o thi s fede r al cour t. . . and l i ed t o thi s courtaboutt he l egal i tyof thi s Pet i t i oner ’ s s ent ence s and the corr ectnes s of Pet i t i oner ’ s s t at e appe l l [at e] pr ocedur es , w hen they b o th k n e w su c h to b e fa lse a n d a f ra u d u p o n th is c o u rt. R ., d o c . 5 7 , at 2 . In o th e r w o rd s, th e c laim ra ise d b yM r. B e rryh ill in h is R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n w a s th a t th e ru lin g s in h is c o n v ictio n a n d d ire c t ap p e a l w e re v o id-6-

due t o fr aud and thatt he w i tnes s es i n hi s habea s pr ocee di ngs comm i t t ed fr aud by notadmi t t i ng t hatt he pr evi ous rul i ngs w er e voi d. I n hi s m ot i ons , M r . B err yhi l l cont ended that , i n l i ghtof the fr aud comm i t t ed on both the s t at e and feder al cour t s , the fe der al cour ts houl d w i thdr aw i t s m andat e; the pr evi ous s t at e courtappea l s houl d be dec l ar ed voi d; and he s houl d be gr ant ed l eave t o fi l e an a ppeal outof t i m e w i th the O C C A . I n other w o rd s, h e sh o u ld b e p e rm itt e d to sta rt th e e n tire p ro c e ss o f re v iew in g h is c o n v ictio n s a ll o v e r a g a in , b e g in n in g w ith a f re sh , d ire c t ap p e a l in sta te c o u rt. T he di s tr i ctcourt , aft erdet erm i ni ng t hatthe R ul e 60( b) m ot i on s ought reli ef fro m the 1 9 9 0 v erd ictan d sen tenc es im p o sed in M r. B erryh il l’ s state co u rt pr ocee di ng, r atherthan r el i ef f r om j udgm entavai l abl e underR ul e 60( b) , deni ed th e mo t i o n . M r . Be r r yh i l l a p p e a l e d th e d e n i a l , a n d th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td e n i e d CO A. A n a ly sis P ro c e e d in g in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e p ro c e d u re s o u tli n e d in Spi tz nas v. B oone , N o . 0 5 -62 3 6 , ___ F . 3 d

___ , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 7 8 9 8 6 8 (10 th C ir . S ep t. 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 ), w e not e, fi r s t , thatthi s i s an appe al fr om t he deni al of a Rul e 60( b) m ot i on. I f, how ever , that60( b) m ot i on w as i n fac ta s econd ors ucce s s i ve pet i t i on, t he di s t r i ct c o u rt la c k e d ju ri s d ic tio n to d e n yit o n th e m e ri ts . See i d. at*1; Uni t ed Stat es v. G al l egos , 1 4 2 F .3 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 1 2 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( p e r c u ri a m ). M r. B e rryh ill ’s R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n c h a rg e s f ra u d o n th e c o u rt in re g a rd to th e ru lin g s p e rta in in g to h is s e n ten c in g , h is d ire c t ap p e a l, an d th e d e n ial o f h is-7-

habea s pet i t i on. I n cas es w her e the al l egat i on of fr aud att acks onl y“s om e defect i n the i nt egr i tyof the fe der al habea s pr ocee di ngs , ” G onz al ezv. C r os by , 1 2 5 S . C t. 2641, 2648, w i thoutatt acki ng “the s ubs t ance of the fe der al cour t ’ s r es ol ut i on of a cl ai m on the mer i t s , ” the mot i on w i l l be cons i der ed a true 60( b) m ot i on thatcan b e d e c id e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt w ith o u t p ri o r a u th o ri z a tio n u n d e r § 2 2 4 4 (b ). M r . B erryhi l l ’ s al l egat i ons of fr aud cl ear l ydo notfal l i nt o thi s cat egory . I ns t ead, hi s al l egat i ons s eek t o as s ertorr eas s er thabea s cl ai m s ( al l eged f r aud comm i t t ed r egar di ng hi s or i gi nal s ent ence and di r ectappea l ) , orar e i nextr i cabl yi nt er tw i ned w i th a cl ai m of fr aud comm i t t ed on the s t at e court s ( and perpetuat ed byan al l eged cont i nui ng fr aud comm i t t ed i n the habe as pr ocee di ng t o coverup the fr aud on the s ta te c o u rt ), r e s u ltin g in a m e ri ts -b a s e d a tta c k o n h is s ta te c o n v ic tio n s . H i s al l egat i on thatthe s t at e hi d fr om the habe as cour tthe fa ctthatthe O C C A lac k e d ju risd ictio n to a dju d ica te h is d ire c t ap p e a l, fo r e x a m p le, “ is effect i vel yi ndi s t i ngui s habl e fr om al l egi ng that[he] i s , underthe s ubs t ant i ve pr ovi s i ons of the s t atut es , ent i t l ed t o habea s r el i ef. ” G onz al ez , 125 S. C t . at2648; s ee als o Spi tnz as , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 7 8 9 8 6 8 , at *2 . Itn ec essa ri lyatt ac k s the stat e c o u rt j udgm ent , s eeki ng t o have i tdecl ar ed voi d, r atherthan r ai s i ng an i ndepende nt “defecti n the i nt egr i tyof the fe der al habea s pr ocee di ngs . ” G onz al ez , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 2 6 4 8 ; s ee als o Spi tz nas , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 7 8 9 8 6 8 , a t * 1 . T he s ame i s t rue forhi s cl ai m thathi s s t at e- appoi nt ed att or ney

“ f ra u d u len tly ” p ro v id e d h im w ith in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o n d ire c t ap p e a l, an d h is-8-

c laim th a t th e sta te c o u rt “ f ra u d u len tly ” lac k e d ju risd ictio n to e n h a n c e h is s ent ence undert he habi tual offe nderpr ovi s i ons . I f i tw er e a s uffi ci ents how i ng of fr aud t o r e- al l ege one ’ s s ubs t ant i ve ar gum ent s i n the gui s e of f r aud on the habe as courtbas ed on, forexampl e, t he s t at e’ s fai l ur e t o ar gue ordemonstr at e the l egal w eakne s s es of i t s ow n pos i t i on, no habea s j udgm entw oul d be s afe fr om a s econd o r s u c c e s s iv e a tta c k . See i d. at*2, n. 4 ( caut i oni ng l i t i gant s agai ns tr e- cas t i ng s u b s ta n tiv e h a b e a s a rg u m e n ts in th e g u is e o f “ f ra u d o n th e c o u rt ” ). M r. B e rryh ill a lso c laim s th a t th e sta te c o n sp ire d to c a u se h im to u se u p h is firsth ab ea s p eti ti o n b yfa il ing to d iscl o se ju ri sd ict ion al de fe cts i n the s tat e c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s. S u c h a n a ss e rtio n in th is c a se is e n tirelym e ritles s, b e c a u se th e o n ly fac tual bas i s fori tl i es i n the r eform ul at i on of M r . B erryhi l l ’ s habea s cl ai m s of f ra u d o n th e s ta te c o u rt in th e g u is e o f f ra u d o n th e h a b e a s c o u rt . I n s um , M r . B err yhi l l has fi l ed a s econd ors ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i on and nota true 60( b) m ot i on. W e ther efor e vac at e the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s di s pos i t i on on the mer i t s of hi s 60( b) m ot i on. M r . Be r r yh i l l h a s fi l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n fo rCO A i n th i s c a s e , wh i c h we c o n stru e a s a n a p p lica tio n fo r a u th o riz a tio n to file a su c c e ss iv e p e tit io n . In h is a p p l i c a t i o n fo rCOA, h e s t a t e s “ I h a d n o mo n e yt o h i r e a n a t t o rn e ys o i tt o o k me ten y ea rs of

stud yin [ a] p ri so n law li b raryto d eterm ine th at m ysen tenc es a re V oi d and the tr i al j udge w as w i thoutj ur i s di ct i on t o s ent ence m e t o s ai d exce s s i ve s e n t e n c e s . ” T h i s a l l e g a t i o n , a n d th e o th e rs t a t e me n t s i n h i s a p p l i c a t i o n fo rCO A,-9-

do notes t abl i s h “a pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng t hatthe appl i cat i on s at i s fi es the re q u ir e m e n ts ” fo r a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e p e titio n . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b )( 3 )( C ). W e V A C A T E t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s or derdeny i ng M r . B erryhi l l ’ s 60( b) m o tio n , b e c a u se th e c o u rt lac k e d su bjec t m a tter ju risd ictio n to ru le o n th e m e rits of thatm ot i on. W e D E N Y hi m author i zat i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2 2 5 4 h a b e a s p e t i t i o n . M r . Be r ryh i l l ’ s r e q u e s tt o p r o c e e d o n a p p e a l i n fo r ma p a u p e r i s i s GR ANT E D. Al l o th e rp e n d i n g mo t i o n s a r e DE NI E D.