UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

MENDY READ-FORBES, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-3260 

(D.C. No. 2:12-CR-20099-KHV-1) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, GORSUCH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Mendy Read-Forbes, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s denial of her motion for immediate release from custody pending the district 

court’s decision on the merits of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.1

 We exercise 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm. 

 *

 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 

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

 In amended notices of appeal, Ms. Read-Forbes mentioned the district court’s 

order denying her motion to appoint counsel and for the trial judge to recuse herself. 

Ms. Read-Forbes’s brief on appeal, however, is confined to arguments concerning 

(continued) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

January 8, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

Ms. Read-Forbes pled guilty in March 2015, to conspiracy to commit money 

laundering. The following month she was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment, 

and shortly thereafter, she filed a pro se notice of appeal. This court granted the 

government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in Ms. Read-Forbes’s 

plea agreement and dismissed her appeal. See United States v. Read-Forbes, 

No. 15-3105, 2015 WL 5090972, at *2 (10th Cir. Aug. 31, 2015). 

Ms. Read-Forbes has recently filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or set aside 

her sentence in the district court in which she argues, among other things, that her 

trial counsel was ineffective in negotiating the plea agreement and the government 

committed prosecutorial misconduct. She also filed a motion for immediate release 

pending the outcome of her § 2255 motion. The district court denied the motion for 

immediate release. 

In order to obtain release pending a determination on the merits of a motion 

for habeas relief, the inmate must make a showing of exceptional circumstances or 

demonstrate a clear case on the merits of her habeas petition. See Pfaff v. Wells, 

648 F.2d 689, 693 (10th Cir. 1981). Ms. Read-Forbes has done neither. 

 

 

why the district court erred in denying her motion for immediate release. More 

particularly, she never makes any arguments as to when a court is required to appoint 

counsel or when recusal is required. 
3 

The order of the district court denying Ms. Read-Forbes’s motion for 

immediate release is affirmed. We grant Ms. Read-Forbes’s motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis on appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam