Court Opinion

ID: 9382633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 15:00:38.558711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:40.648162
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1422     Document: 010110833778         Date Filed: 03/28/2023     Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                             March 28, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                           No. 22-1422
                                                     (D.C. No. 1:01-CR-00395-JLK-1)
  JAMES FLOYD CLEAVER,                                          (D. Colo.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, KELLY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

        James Floyd Cleaver, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion that

 the district court construed as an unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district

 court denied the motion on that basis, and Cleaver now moves for a certificate of

 appealability (COA). We deny a COA and dismiss this matter.

 I.     BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        In 2003, a federal jury convicted Cleaver of arson and other offenses related to

 the destruction of certain IRS offices in Colorado Springs. The district court imposed

 a 400-month prison sentence. Cleaver then pursued an unsuccessful appeal and an

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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.
Appellate Case: 22-1422     Document: 010110833778        Date Filed: 03/28/2023     Page: 2

 unsuccessful § 2255 motion, and he has since filed multiple unsuccessful motions in

 the district court invoking other authorities to attack his conviction and sentence.

        Last year, Cleaver moved for authorization from this court to file a new § 2255

 motion (No. 22-1163). Through a FOIA request, he had recently received an arson

 investigator’s report for the fire in question. He argued that certain details in that

 report, combined with other evidence available at the time of trial (although mostly

 not presented to the jury), showed a likelihood of actual innocence. We rejected that

 argument and denied his motion.

        About a month later, Cleaver filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)

 motion in the district court. Cleaver based this motion on the same evidence and

 arguments he presented in the motion for authorization we had just denied. The

 district court denied this motion as, in substance, an unauthorized § 2255 motion.

        Cleaver soon filed a letter with the district court requesting appointed counsel

 and an evidentiary hearing. Cleaver acknowledged that this court had not authorized

 a new § 2255 motion, but he insisted that he still had a right to present an actual-

 innocence argument, to avoid a miscarriage of justice. His letter included a summary

 of the evidence presented in his Rule 60(b)(6) motion, which he believed an

 evidentiary hearing would corroborate. The district court determined that this request

 was, in substance, another unauthorized § 2255 motion, and denied it for lack of

 jurisdiction.

        Cleaver next filed a motion with the district court requesting a COA so he

 could appeal the denial of his letter requesting counsel and an evidentiary hearing.

                                             2
Appellate Case: 22-1422      Document: 010110833778         Date Filed: 03/28/2023    Page: 3

 The district court denied that motion. Finally, Cleaver filed the notice of appeal

 leading to the current proceeding. Cleaver’s notice states that he is appealing the

 district court’s “denial of his request for Certificate of Appealability.” R. at 228.

 II.      ANALYSIS

          “If the [district] court denies a [COA], a party may not appeal the denial but

 may seek a [COA] from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate

 Procedure 22.” Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings. Thus, Cleaver

 may not use the denial of a COA as the basis for a notice of appeal.

          This alone is not fatal because, “[e]ven if a notice fails to properly designate

 the order from which the appeal is taken, this Court has jurisdiction if the appellant’s

 intention was clear,” Fleming v. Evans, 481 F.3d 1249, 1253–54 (10th Cir. 2007).

 We have no doubt Cleaver actually intended to appeal the order at issue in his district

 court motion for a COA, namely, the order denying his letter requesting appointment

 of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. We will focus our COA analysis on that

 order.

          To merit a COA, Cleaver “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find

 the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”

 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). And he must make an extra showing

 in this circumstance because the district court resolved his motion on a procedural

 basis, namely, lack of jurisdiction. So he must also show that “jurists of reason

 would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural

 ruling.” Id.

                                               3
Appellate Case: 22-1422    Document: 010110833778        Date Filed: 03/28/2023      Page: 4

        Jurists of reason would not debate the district court’s procedural ruling.

 Cleaver’s explicit purpose for requesting counsel and an evidentiary hearing was to

 reopen proceedings in his criminal case and attempt to prove his innocence. In

 substance, that amounts to an unauthorized § 2255 motion, so the district court

 correctly refused to exercise jurisdiction over it. See In re Pickard, 681 F.3d 1201,

 1205 (10th Cir. 2012).

 III.   CONCLUSION

        We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We grant Cleaver’s motion to

 proceed without prepayment of costs or fees.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

                                            4