United States v. Graham

Filing 920100907

Opinion

Download PDF
U n i t e d States Court of Appeals T e n t h Circuit FILED S e p t e m b e r 7, 2010 U N I T E D STATES COURT OF APPEALSl i s a b e t h A. Shumaker E T E N T H CIRCUIT __________________________ U N I T E D STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. G R E G O R Y E. GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________________ O R D E R AND JUDGMENT * B e f o r e BARRETT, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. N o . 10-8006 ( D . C t . No. 2:05-CR-00078-ABJ-2) ( D . Wyo.) C l e r k of Court A f t e r examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined u n a n i mo u s l y that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination o f this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is t h e r e f o r e ordered submitted without oral argument. A p p e l l a n t Gregory E. Graham, a federal inmate, appeals the district court's d e n i a l of his "Motion To Recall Mandate Order on Court[']s Denial." We This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the d o c t r i n e s of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, h o w e v e r , for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th C i r . R. 32.1. * e x e r c i s e jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and grant Mr. Graham's motion to p r o c e e d in forma pauperis, grant the government's motion to dismiss, and dismiss M r . Graham's appeal. I . Factual and Procedural Background O n August 23, 2005, Mr. Graham pled guilty to the offense of distribution o f 7.1 grams of cocaine base (crack cocaine). United States v. Graham, 466 F.3d 1 2 3 4 , 1235-36 (10 th Cir. 2006). The district court sentenced him to twenty-five y e a r s imprisonment based on his and the government's Rule 11 plea agreement in w h i c h he waived his right to appeal, stipulated to distribution of 7.1 grams of c r a c k cocaine, and stipulated to a twenty-five-year sentence. 1 Id. at 1236-38. We a f f i r me d Mr. Graham's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Id. at 1241. T h e r e a f t e r , Mr. Graham unsuccessfully filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c), requesting a reduction of his sentence in conjunction with Amendment 7 0 6 which modified the Drug Quantity Table in United States Sentencing G u i d e l i n e s ("Guidelines" or "U.S.S.G.") 2D1.1(c) downward two levels for Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) permits the government a n d defendant to discuss and reach a plea agreement, including an agreement a s p e c i f i c sentence is appropriate, and states that once the plea agreement is a c c e p t e d by the district court, the specified sentence is binding. -2- 1 c r a c k cocaine. 2 United States v. Graham, 304 F.App'x 686, 687 (10 th Cir. 2008) ( u n p u b l i s h e d op.). The district court denied Mr. Graham's 3582(c)(2) motion o n grounds he did not qualify for a sentence reduction because the amount of c r a c k cocaine attributable to him rendered him ineligible for relief. Id. We a f f i r me d on other grounds, explaining that because Mr. Graham agreed to a b i n d i n g sentence of twenty-five years, his sentence was not "based on a s e n t e n c i n g range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing C o mmi s s i o n , " as required under 3582(c)(2) 3 for a sentence reduction. Id. at 6 8 8 . Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Mr. Graham's 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence, we remanded the matter to the d i s t r i c t court with instructions to dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Id. On January 14, 2009, the district court issued an "Order on Mandate," dismissing M r . Graham's 3582 motion for lack of jurisdiction. See U.S.S.G. Supp. to App. C, Amend. 706 (Reason for Amend.); A me n d s . 712 and 713 (Mar. 3, 2008 Supp.); 1B1.10(a)(2). 3 2 Section 3582 states: [ I ]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of i mp r i s o n me n t based on a sentencing range that has subsequently b e e n lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [ ] 994(o), ... the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after c o n s i d e r i n g the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that t h e y are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable p o l i c y statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 1 8 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). -3- M r . Graham filed the instant "Motion to Recall Mandate Order on Court[']s D e n i a l " with the district court, asking it to recall our mandate and reconsider the i s s u e presented for a reduction of sentence. 4 Thereafter, the district court issued a n order denying Mr. Graham's motion, explaining it did not have jurisdiction to r e c a l l a mandate of this court. It also stated it did not have jurisdiction to e n t e r t a i n a motion to reduce his sentence, as explained by this court in his prior a p p e a l . Mr. Graham now appeals the district court's order. II. Discussion O n appeal, Mr. Graham renews the same arguments previously made to s e e k a reduction of his sentence under Amendment 706 to the Guidelines. He a l s o reasserts issues expressly addressed by this court in his direct appeal, i n c l u d i n g the knowingness and voluntariness of his plea; ineffective assistance of c o u n s e l ; and the sentencing requirements under Booker. See Graham, 466 F.3d at 1 2 3 9 - 4 1 . Mr. Graham also claims the government misrepresented or misc h a r a c t e r i z e d the evidence and facts concerning his sentence and that his sentence v i o l a t e s the Fifth Amendment. In response, the government filed a motion to d i s mi s s Mr. Graham's appeal based on the district court's lack of jurisdiction to Mr. Graham also filed a second motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582 for a s e n t e n c e reduction on the same grounds; i.e., Amendment 706 lowered the G u i d e l i n e s range and should be applied to him. The district court denied his mo t i o n for lack of jurisdiction, which is not part of this appeal. -4- 4 g r a n t the relief requested for recall of this court's mandate. As previously discussed, we determined Mr. Graham's sentence did not q u a l i f y for a sentence reduction under 3582(c)(2) because he and the g o v e r n me n t stipulated to a sentence of twenty-five years under Federal Rule of C r i mi n a l Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). See Graham, 304 F.App'x at 687. Not only did t h e district court lack jurisdiction to consider Mr. Graham's prior 3582 motion, b u t , in the instant case, it correctly determined it did not have jurisdiction to " r e c a l l " a mandate of this court or otherwise provide Mr. Graham the relief r e q u e s t e d . It is a fundamental or rudimentary principle of our judicial system that o n c e an appellate court issues a mandate to a district court to dismiss an action f o r lack of jurisdiction, the district court does not have jurisdiction to recall or o t h e r w i s e void our mandate or to reconsider the merits of an action. To argue o t h e r w i s e is simply frivolous. Even if we reached the merits of Mr. Graham's other arguments on appeal, t h e y are equally frivolous. None of those arguments address the district court's j u r i s d i c t i o n ; provide grounds for recall of our mandate; or are appropriate where t h i s court has definitively addressed them on direct appeal, including his a r g u me n t s concerning the knowingness and voluntariness of his plea, ineffective a s s i s t a n c e of counsel, and the sentencing requirements under Booker. To the -5- e x t e n t Mr. Graham is arguing Booker should be applied in his request for a r e d u c t i o n of his sentence, we have held Booker does not apply to sentence mo d i f i c a t i o n proceedings conducted under 3582(c)(2). United States v. Rhodes, 5 4 9 F.3d 833, 840 (10 th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2052 (2009). F i n a l l y , it is clear that by filing a motion with the district court to recall our ma n d a t e , reconsider his 3582 motion, and rule on issues previously addressed b y this court in his direct appeal, Mr. Graham is attempting to obtain favorable r e s u l t s on issues previously deemed meritless or over which the district court l a c k e d jurisdiction. Similarly, Mr. Graham has not explained why he failed to r a i s e the issues of the government's alleged misrepresentations and his sentence's v i o l a t i o n of the Fifth Amendment in his direct appeal. Instead, the instant appeal o n all of these issues is clearly an abuse of the judicial process, including the c a u s e of unnecessary expenditures of judicial resources. We have held "[t]he r i g h t of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional, and there is no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous o r malicious." Winslow v. Hunter (In re Winslow), 17 F.3d 314, 315 (10 th Cir. 1 9 9 4 ) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). We have f u r t h e r held that where a party has "engaged in a pattern of litigation activity w h i c h is manifestly abusive, restrictions are appropriate." Id. (internal quotation ma r k s omitted). -6- A c c o r d i n g l y , we caution Mr. Graham future post-conviction filings on f r i v o l o u s issues may result in summary disposition without any discussion. While w e grant Mr. Graham's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the i n s t a n t action, we further caution him we may limit permission in the future to p r o c e e d in forma pauperis, regardless of his financial ability to pay such costs a n d fees, should he continue to file frivolous pleadings. 5 The fact Mr. Graham is a pro se litigant does not prohibit the court from such summary disposition and l i mi t a t i o n s on frivolous or abusive filings. See Haworth v. Royal, 347 F.3d 1189, 1 1 9 2 (10 th Cir. 2003). I I I . Conclusion F o r the foregoing reasons, we GRANT the government's motion to dismiss a n d thereby DISMISS Mr. Graham's appeal. We further GRANT Mr. Graham's mo t i o n to proceed in forma pauperis. E n t e r e d by the Court: W A D E BRORBY U n i t e d States Circuit Judge See In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 183-85 (1989) (limiting petitioner f r o m proceeding in forma pauperis in future petitions for extraordinary writs b a s e d on petitioner's abuse of judicial resources); Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258, 2 6 0 (6 th Cir. 1992) (permitting "such prospective orders where a plaintiff has d e mo n s t r a t e d a history of unsubstantial and vexatious litigation [amounting to] an a b u s e of the permission granted to him to proceed as a pauper in good faith under 2 8 U.S.C. 1915(d)"). -7- 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?