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 pr oceeding pro se, app eals the district court’s denial of her motion for immediat e release from custody pe nding 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, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve 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 appoi nt 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 Court2 Ms. Read-Forbes pled guilty in March 2015, to conspiracy to commit money laundering. The following month she was se ntenced to 240 months’ imprisonment, and shortly thereafter, she filed a pro se notice of appeal. Th is 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 di strict court in which she argue s, among other things, that her trial counsel was ineffectiv e in negotiating the plea ag reement 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 de termination 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 me rits of her habeas petition. See Pfaff v. Wells , 648 F.2d 689, 693 (10th Cir. 1981). Ms. Read-For bes has done neither.

why the district court erre d in denying her motion for im mediate release. More particularly, she never makes any arguments as to when a court is required to appoint counsel or when recu sal is required.3 The order of the district court denying Ms. Read-Forbes’s motion for immediate release is affirm ed. We grant Ms. Read-F orbes’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam