Court Opinion

ID: 9914915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-03 18:00:48.552422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:22.800449
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1207     Document: 010110977619        Date Filed: 01/03/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                    FILED
                                                                        United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           January 3, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                           Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                               Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 23-1207
                                                    (D.C. No. 1:03-CR-00495-REB-1)
  FREDERICK D. DEBERRY,                                         (D. Colo.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.**
                  _________________________________

       In 2008, Defendant-Appellant Frederick D. Deberry pled guilty to possession

 of a prohibited object (an ice-pick style knife) in prison used in an altercation that

 resulted in serious injury to another inmate. 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2), (b)(3).

 Although the advisory guideline range was 18–24 months, he received a sentence of

 54 months based on an upward departure. The district court rejected Mr. Deberry’s

 argument that he was entitled to have a jury determine the underlying factual issues

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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.
        **
           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.
Appellate Case: 23-1207    Document: 010110977619          Date Filed: 01/03/2024   Page: 2

 that resulted in a sentence above the advisory guideline range but within the statutory

 range of five years. 1 R. Supp. 152–54. On direct appeal, this court affirmed his

 conviction and sentence, rejecting his Sixth Amendment argument that he was

 entitled to a jury determination. United States v. Deberry, 364 F. App’x 404, 405–06

 (10th Cir. 2010). Subsequently, Mr. Deberry filed an unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2255

 motion but did not raise this issue. 1 R. Supp. 179, 182–84; 1 R. 73–74. We denied a

 certificate of appealability. United States v. Deberry, 451 F. App’x 749, 761 (10th

 Cir. 2011).

       Having completed his federal sentence in 2014, Mr. Deberry sought a writ of

 coram nobis in 2023. 1 R. 75. The district court rejected his claim, reasoning that it

 was both substantively incorrect and procedurally defaulted. Id. at 110–122. The

 district court also denied reconsideration. Id. at 132–33. On appeal, Mr. Deberry

 argues that he should prevail under Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and

 that the district court erred in concluding that he procedurally defaulted this issue by

 not raising it in his § 2255 motion.1 Aplt. Br. at 5–7.

       1
          We note that the district court also held that Mr. Deberry waited too long to
 file his coram nobis petition. 1 R. 121. By failing to adequately challenge this
 ground upon which the judgment rests, Mr. Deberry has waived the issue and cannot
 prevail. See Murrell v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1388, 1389–90 (10th Cir. 1994).
 Regardless, we agree that there is a diligence requirement, see United States v.
 Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 511 (1954), and that Mr. Deberry has not met it. The fact that
 Alleyne had not been decided until 2013 is not persuasive given that Mr. Deberry did
 not raise it until 2023, and his lack of knowledge of the law does not excuse his
 delay. See United States v. Tarango, 670 F. App’x 981, 981 (10th Cir. 2016)
 (quoting Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir. 2000)).
                                             2
Appellate Case: 23-1207    Document: 010110977619        Date Filed: 01/03/2024     Page: 3

       When reviewing a coram nobis decision, we review any factual findings for

 clear error, legal questions de novo, and the ultimate grant or denial of the writ for an

 abuse of discretion. United States v. Lujan, No. 22-2014, 2022 WL 17588500, at *3

 (10th Cir. Dec. 13, 2022) (quoting United States v. Lesane, 40 F.4th 191, 196

 (4th Cir. 2022)). Coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy designed to achieve justice

 and is not granted when other remedies such as § 2255 are available. See United

 States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009). Here, Mr. Deberry obtained a decision

 on direct appeal on the issue of whether he was entitled to a jury determination. He

 did not include it as an issue in his § 2255 motion, and his explanation, that Alleyne

 had not been decided yet, is unavailing given that the same issue was raised on direct

 appeal.

       Regardless, Alleyne cannot bear the weight he places on it. Mr. Deberry’s

 argument that he was entitled to a jury determination on the facts involving the

 upward departure resulting in an above-guidelines sentence fares no better under

 Alleyne. Only facts which increase a mandatory minimum or a statutory maximum

 sentence must be submitted to a jury. Alleyne, 570 U.S. at 108. We have

 consistently held that this rule does not apply to determining the guideline range

 under the advisory guidelines. See United States v. Zar, 790 F.3d 1036, 1054–55

 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Cassius, 777 F.3d 1093, 1097–98 (10th Cir. 2015).

                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-1207   Document: 010110977619        Date Filed: 01/03/2024   Page: 4

       AFFIRMED. We DENY IFP status because Mr. Deberry has not advanced a

 rational argument on the law and the facts, see Watkins v. Leyba, 543 F.3d 624, 627

 (10th Cir. 2008).

                                           Entered for the Court

                                           Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
                                           Circuit Judge

                                          4