United States v. Frazier
658 F. App'x 921
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Frazier was convicted by jury of kidnapping, drug and firearm offenses and sentenced to life; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- He filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the district court denied relief and denied a COA.
- Frazier alleges his attorney never sent or appealed the § 2255 denial as agreed; he filed a pro se appeal after the deadline, which this Court dismissed as untimely for lack of jurisdiction.
- He then moved in district court for (1) permission to file an untimely appeal (reopen the appeal period) and (2) to reopen his § 2255 to add a jurisdictional challenge based on arrest by municipal (not federal) officers; the district court denied both requests on April 21, 2016.
- The district court held the motion to reopen the appeal period was untimely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) (filed after the 180-day limit) and treated the request to add a jurisdictional claim as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 requiring prior authorization from the court of appeals.
- Frazier applied pro se for a COA to appeal the district court’s April 21, 2016 order; the panel denied the COA and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court should have reopened the time to file an appeal under Rule 4(a)(6) | Frazier sought permission to file an untimely appeal because his attorney failed to appeal per their agreement | District court argued Rule 4(a)(6) imposes a 180-day outer limit and the motion was filed after that period | Denied — motion to reopen was filed 205 days after judgment, beyond Rule 4(a)(6) limit |
| Whether the district court should have permitted amendment/reopening of the § 2255 to add a jurisdictional claim | Frazier argued he could challenge jurisdiction (arrest by municipal police) in a reopened § 2255 | District court treated the request as a second or successive § 2255 requiring prior appellate authorization under §§ 2244(b)(3)/2255(h) | Denied — request amounted to a second/successive § 2255 and district court lacked jurisdiction without appellate authorization |
| Whether a COA should issue to review the district court’s procedural rulings | Frazier sought a COA to appeal the denial of his motions | Government implicitly argued the procedural rulings were correct and not debatable | Denied — jurists of reason would not find the procedural rulings debatable; COA denied |
| Whether the substance of the jurisdictional claim can be reached despite procedural bars | Frazier contended the court lacked jurisdiction to impose sentence | Court noted jurisdictional claims fall within § 2255 relief but require proper procedure for successive motions | Not reached on merits — procedural defects preclude consideration until authorization is obtained |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (1999) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability when relief was denied on procedural grounds)
- Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings entitled to liberal construction)
- Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2000) (Rule 4(a)(6) 180-day outer time limit to reopen the appeal period)
- United States v. Nelson, 465 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2006) (substance of a pleading, not its label, determines whether it is a § 2255 motion)
- In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2008) (district court lacks jurisdiction to consider second/successive § 2255 without court-of-appeals authorization)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (new rule of constitutional law potentially relevant to collateral challenges)