Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Filed United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Chester Bird's request for a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of his federal habeas corpus petition. The district court had dismissed all of Bird's claims as either untimely or not cognizable under federal law. The appellate court agreed, finding that all but one of Bird's claims were untimely because they derived from administrative decisions made more than 20 years prior. It also determined that Bird's sole timely claim, regarding his right to allocution at resentencing, did not allege a violation of his constitutional rights. Therefore, reasonable jurists would not debate whether Bird's petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the district court's procedural

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Filed United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views5 pages
    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Chester Bird's request for a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of his federal habeas corpus petition. The district court had dismissed all of Bird's claims as either untimely or not cognizable under federal law. The appellate court agreed, finding that all but one of Bird's claims were untimely because they derived from administrative decisions made more than 20 years prior. It also determined that Bird's sole timely claim, regarding his right to allocution at resentencing, did not allege a violation of his constitutional rights. Therefore, reasonable jurists would not debate whether Bird's petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the district court's procedural

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-05-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 16-8001

    Original Title

    Bird v. Wilson, 10th Cir. (2016)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Chester Bird's request for a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of his federal habeas corpus petition. The district court had dismissed all of Bird's claims as either untimely or not cognizable under federal law. The appellate court agreed, finding that all but one of Bird's claims were untimely because they derived from administrative decisions made more than 20 years prior. It also determined that Bird's sole timely claim, regarding his right to allocution at resentencing, did not allege a violation of his constitutional rights. Therefore, reasonable jurists would not debate whether Bird's petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the district court's procedural

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    10 views5 pages

    Filed United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Chester Bird's request for a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court's denial of his federal habeas corpus petition. The district court had dismissed all of Bird's claims as either untimely or not cognizable under federal law. The appellate court agreed, finding that all but one of Bird's claims were untimely because they derived from administrative decisions made more than 20 years prior. It also determined that Bird's sole timely claim, regarding his right to allocution at resentencing, did not allege a violation of his constitutional rights. Therefore, reasonable jurists would not debate whether Bird's petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the district court's procedural

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT


    _________________________________
    CHESTER L. BIRD,

    FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit

    May 20, 2016


    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court

    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    EDDIE WILSON, Warden, Wyoming
    State Penitentiary,

    No. 16-8001
    (D.C. No. 2:15-CV-00153-NDF)
    (D. Wyo.)

    Respondent - Appellee.
    _________________________________
    ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
    _________________________________
    Before KELLY, HOLMES, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________
    Chester Bird seeks to appeal the district courts denial of his federal habeas
    corpus petition, which he filed under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Because all of Birds claims
    are either untimely or not cognizable under federal law, we deny Bird a certificate of
    appealability (COA).
    In 1994, a Wyoming court sentenced Bird to two life sentences after he pled
    guilty to sexual assault and kidnapping while on parole. The court ordered the

    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. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

    sentences to run concurrently with each other but didnt state whether Bird would
    serve those sentences consecutively to, or concurrently with, a prior sentence that
    was reinstated upon the revocation of Birds parole.
    In 2014, Bird filed a motion to correct illegal sentence in state district court. In
    2015, the court denied the motion in part and granted it in part, crediting Bird with 37
    days of time served in presentence confinement. It also clarified that Birds
    concurrent life sentences were to run consecutively to the sentence reinstated upon
    the revocation of his parole, noting that the presumption is that the sentences are to
    be served consecutively when the sentencing court is silent about the matter. R. vol.
    1, 89 (quoting Apodaca v. State, 891 P.2d 83, 85 (Wyo. 1995)).
    After the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, Bird sought relief in federal
    court under 2241. The federal district court dismissed Birds claims as untimely,
    procedurally barred, and not cognizable under federal law. Bird filed a pro se1 notice
    of appeal, which we construe as a request for a COA. See 10th Cir. R. 22.1(A); see
    also Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 867 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding that state
    prisoner must obtain COA to appeal denial of 2241 petition).
    When a district court denies a petition on procedural grounds, we may issue a
    COA only if the petitioner shows that jurists of reason would find it debatable

    Because Bird proceeds pro se, we construe his brief liberally. See Eldridge v.
    Berkebile, 791 F.3d 1239, 1243 n.4 (10th Cir. 2015). But we wont act as his
    advocate by formulating arguments or scouring the record on his behalf. See id.
    2

    whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that
    jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
    procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
    Here, the district court determined that Birds time for filing his 2241
    petition expired in 1997 and therefore dismissed his 2015 petition as untimely. See 28
    U.S.C. 2244(d)(1) (setting one-year time limit to file habeas petition); Dulworth v.
    Evans, 442 F.3d 1265, 1268 (10th Cir. 2006) (concluding that 2244(d)(1)s time
    limit applies to state prisoners 2241 petition challenging administrative decision).
    Bird argues this was error. He contends that the state district court resentenced him
    when it ruled on his motion to correct illegal sentence and, consequently,
    2244(d)(1)s one-year time limit restarted in 2015. See Hepburn v. Moore, 215 F.3d
    1208, 1209 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding that 2244(d)(1)s time limit runs from date
    resentencing order becomes final). Thus, Bird insists, his 2015 petition was timely.
    But we see no indication that the state district court resentenced Bird in 2015.
    In fact, the Wyoming Supreme Court expressly rejected Birds argument that the
    state district court imposed a new sentence on that date. See Bird v. State, 356 P.3d
    264, 269 (Wyo. 2015) (concluding that state district court merely clarified that the
    presumption of consecutiveness applied to [Birds] sentences); see also United
    States v. Cage, 451 F.3d 585, 590 (10th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing between new

    sentence and clarification of the original sentence), overruled on other grounds by


    Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007).
    In any event, even if we assume that the 2015 decision clarifying Birds
    sentence constituted a resentencing, that resentencing only restarted 2244(d)(1)s
    one-year time limit for new claims originating from that resentencing. See
    Prendergast v. Clements, 699 F.3d 1182, 1186-87 (10th Cir. 2012) (noting that we
    apply one-year time limit on a claim-by-claim basis and rejecting argument that
    resentencing revives all claims in habeas petition); Hepburn, 215 F.3d at 1209
    (refusing to require a prisoner to raise claims before they arise, including claims that
    originate in the context of resentencing). Here, all but one of Birds claims derive
    from administrative decisions made in 1994. Thus, we agree these claims are
    untimely. See Prendergast, 699 F.3d at 1186-87; Dulworth, 442 F.3d at 1268.
    The only claim in Birds petition that arises from his 2015 resentencing is
    his claim that he didnt receive an opportunity for allocution at that time. See Wyo.
    R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1)(C) (requiring sentencing court to [a]ddress the defendant
    personally and determine if the defendant wishes to make a statement). But our
    review is limited to claims that allege constitutional violations. See Estelle v.
    McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) (In conducting habeas review, a federal court is
    limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
    United States.). And we have held that there is no constitutional right to allocution.

    See United States v. Smith, 705 F.3d 1268, 1274 (10th Cir. 2013). Thus, even if we
    assume Birds allocution claim is timely, its not cognizable under federal law.
    In short, reasonable jurists wouldnt debate whether the district court correctly
    dismissed all but one of Birds claims as untimely. Nor would they debate whether
    Birds petitionstripped of untimely claimsstates a valid claim of the denial of a
    constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Accordingly, we deny Birds request for
    a COA and dismiss this appeal.
    Entered for the Court

    Nancy L. Moritz
    Circuit Judge

    You might also like