United States v. Prentice
689 F. App'x 606
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2013 Prentice pleaded guilty to federal drug conspiracy and money laundering; sentenced to 300 months in 2014.
- In July 2015 he filed a pro se motion titled as a § 3582(c)(2) motion that the district court recharacterized as a § 2255 motion and directed him to use the standard § 2255 form.
- Prentice filed the standardized § 2255 form in December 2015 and later supplements, raising 11 claims including ineffective assistance of counsel and lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; he also asserted a claim invoking involuntary servitude (13th Amendment) as overriding the time bar.
- The district court denied the subject‑matter jurisdiction claim on its merits, denied the remaining claims as time‑barred, and denied a certificate of appealability (COA); it also denied a Rule 59(e) motion and a motion to reconsider the COA denial.
- Prentice sought a COA and IFP status on appeal; the Tenth Circuit considered whether reasonable jurists could debate both the merits and the district court’s procedural rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| COA for § 2255 denial based on time bar | Prentice says his claims (esp. involuntary servitude) "trump" the one‑year limitation and merit review | District court and gov’t: claims are procedurally time‑barred; COA unwarranted because no debatable procedural/constitutional error | Denied COA; appeal dismissed — no reasonable jurists would debate the procedural ruling |
| Whether involuntary servitude claim tolls or defeats § 2255 one‑year limit | Prentice contends Thirteenth Amendment claim avoids or tolls the statute of limitations | Court: statutory time limit is for § 2255 and dismissal as time‑barred is appropriate; claim wasn’t raised as separate claim below | Not accepted — claim does not demonstrate a debatable basis to overcome the time bar or to reopen review |
| Subject‑matter jurisdiction over criminal case | Prentice argued lack of jurisdiction over his criminal prosecution and sentencing | Government: federal district courts have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 to hear federal criminal cases | Jurisdictional challenge lacks merit; district court properly exercised jurisdiction |
| Motion to proceed IFP on appeal | Prentice requested IFP status | No basis to grant IFP given dismissal and COA denial | IFP denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (recognizing harsh results from § 2255 statute of limitations but declining to rewrite statute)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for granting a COA when dismissal is on procedural grounds)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se filings construed liberally)
- United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 2009) (same — liberal construction of pro se pleadings)