United States v. Melot
680 F. App'x 788
10th Cir.2017Background
- Bill Melot was convicted in 2011 of tax offenses and making false statements to the USDA; this court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing.
- On remand Melot received a 14-year sentence and restitution orders to the IRS (~$18.47M) and USDA (~$226.5K).
- Melot filed a § 2255 motion in 2014 challenging his sentence; that was denied.
- In October 2016 Melot filed a pleading titled “Motion for Amended Judgment and Sentence/New Trial, Correction of Restitution,” challenging the restitution calculation.
- The district court treated the 2016 filing as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Melot sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal that dismissal, arguing his filing was under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 33 and 36, not § 2255.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2016 filing was a § 2255 motion or a Rule 33/36 motion | Melot: the motion was brought under Rules 33 and 36 (new trial/correction of judgment) | The court: substance attacks the validity of judgment; relief is § 2255 territory | Motion was in substance a § 2255 motion; labeling irrelevant |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider the filing given prior § 2255 relief | Melot: claimed procedural posture under rules avoided § 2255 bar | Government/court: Melot previously litigated § 2255; a second or successive § 2255 requires prior authorization from the circuit | Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper; filing was successive § 2255 |
| Whether Rule 33 provided an available route (timeliness) | Melot: sought new trial/correction under Rule 33 | Court: Rule 33 new-trial deadline had long passed (guilt found in 2010) | Rule 33 was untimely and inapplicable |
| Whether jurists of reason could debate the procedural ruling for COA purposes | Melot: sought COA arguing district court erred in treating filing as § 2255 | Court: substance-over-form doctrine and prior § 2255 bars made dismissal non-debatable | COA denied; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Harper, 545 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2008) (COA requirement and standards for appeals from § 2255 dismissals)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA standard when dismissal is on procedural grounds)
- Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 1999) (§ 2255 is exclusive remedy to challenge validity of judgment and sentence)
- United States v. Nelson, 465 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2006) (substance of relief sought, not pleading title, determines § 2255 treatment)
- Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2010) (pro se filings afforded liberal construction)