Court Opinion

ID: 9367952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 17:00:30.499873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:04.693099
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-3269     Document: 010110807229         Date Filed: 02/02/2023     Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            February 2, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                            No. 22-3269
                                                     (D.C. Nos. 6:19-CV-01321-JWB &
  RAYMOND L. ROGERS,                                      6:10-CR-10186-JWB-1)
                                                                  (D. Kan.)
        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

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

        A federal jury convicted Raymond L. Rogers of bank robbery and related

 firearms offenses, and the district court imposed a 234-month prison sentence. This

 court affirmed. See United States v. Rogers, 520 F. App’x 727, 728 (10th Cir. 2013).

 Rogers then brought a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of

 counsel. The district court denied relief and we denied a certificate of appealability

 (COA). See United States v. Rogers, 599 F. App’x 850, 851 (10th Cir. 2015).

        Rogers has since filed other motions in the district court seeking to overturn

 his conviction, including the motion that gives rise to this proceeding. Specifically,

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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: 22-3269    Document: 010110807229        Date Filed: 02/02/2023     Page: 2

 in October 2022, Rogers filed a motion arguing the district court did not have

 jurisdiction to try and convict him because, in his view, certain pretrial proceedings

 effectively erased the indictment. As authority for such a motion, Rogers invoked

 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(2), which reads, “A motion that the court

 lacks jurisdiction may be made at any time while the case is pending.”

       The district court dismissed Rogers’s motion for lack of jurisdiction, deeming

 it to be, in effect, an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. Rogers now moves for

 a COA to appeal that dismissal. To merit a COA, he “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.

       Rogers argues that the district court should not have recharacterized his Rule

 12(b)(2) motion as a § 2255 motion without giving him notice and an opportunity to

 withdraw it. But that is the procedure this court requires if the pleading in question

 would be deemed the movant’s first § 2255 motion. See United States v. Kelly,

 235 F.3d 1238, 1242 (10th Cir. 2000). That procedure does not apply if the movant

 has already filed a § 2255 motion attacking the same judgment. See United States v.

 Torres, 282 F.3d 1241, 1245–46 (10th Cir. 2002). As noted, Rogers is now well

 beyond his first § 2255 motion. Accordingly, jurists of reason would not debate the

                                             2
Appellate Case: 22-3269    Document: 010110807229        Date Filed: 02/02/2023    Page: 3

 correctness of the district court’s decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We

 therefore deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We grant Rogers’s motion to proceed

 without prepayment of costs or fees.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

                                            3