Price v. Revell , 315 F. App'x 56 ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 25, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS DURAN PRICE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 08-1060
(D.C. No. 1:07-cv-02701-ZLW)
SARA M. REVELL, Warden, (D. Colo.)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK, BRORBY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
Thomas Duran Price, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the
district court’s order denying his application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of
habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
Mr. Price was convicted in the Western District of Pennsylvania in 1995 of
armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) and carrying and using a
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c). He was sentenced to 322 months’ imprisonment. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed his convictions on direct appeal.
United States v. Price, 76 F.3d 526, 530 (3d Cir. 1996).
In 2005, Mr. Price challenged his sentence by filing a “Motion to Correct
Miscarriage of Justice” and a “Motion to Correct Manifest Error, or in the
Alternate, Motion under Rule 35” in the sentencing court. Price v. United States,
Nos. CIV. 05-106, CRIM. 94-221, 2006 WL 1709291, at *1 (W.D. Pa. June 20,
2006). That court determined that the motions were “untimely under [28 U.S.C.
§] 2255, untimely under [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 35(a), and unavailing under Rule
35(b).” Id. at 3. Further, the court determined that Mr. Price’s claims lacked
merit if analyzed under § 2255 requirements. Id. at 9.
Next, apparently while incarcerated in Texas, he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Price v. Miles, 209 F. App’x 442, 442 (5th Cir. 2006). The Fifth Circuit affirmed
the district court’s dismissal of that petition. Id. at 443.
Mr. Price brought the present action in federal district court in Colorado,
where he is now incarcerated. His § 2241 application again challenged the
validity of his sentence. He alleged that it is “excessive and unreasonable in
lieu of Rita v. United States, [551 U.S. 338 (2007)]” and the “enhancements
[he] received on basis of prior convictions were improper under [the]
-2-
functional consolidation rule” of Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 (2001).
R., Vol. I, Doc. 3, at 3.
In its order, the Colorado district court explained the differences between a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which “attacks the execution
of a sentence . . . and must be filed in the district court where the prisoner is
confined,” and a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which “attacks the legality
of detention and must be filed in the district that imposed the sentence.”
Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1178 (10th Cir. 1999) (quotations and
alteration omitted). It then concluded that Mr. Price’s remedy is under § 2255
because the alleged errors occurred during Pennsylvania sentencing proceedings.
And Mr. Price did not demonstrate “extremely limited circumstances” in which
the § 2255 remedy was inadequate or ineffective. Id. The fact that he “may be
barred from filing a second or successive motion pursuant to § 2255 in the
sentencing court does not establish that the remedy provided in § 2255 is
inadequate or ineffective.” Id. The district court therefore denied the § 2241
application and dismissed the case. Mr. Price appeals and also seeks to proceed
in forma pauperis.
After reviewing de novo the district court’s denial of the § 2241
application, see Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996), and giving
Mr. Price’s pro se filings the benefit of liberal construction, see Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), we AFFIRM. Mr. Price’s supplemental brief is
-3-
construed to include a motion for leave to file the brief and that motion is
GRANTED. His motion to proceed in forma pauperis is also GRANTED.
Mr. Price is reminded that he must continue to make partial payments until the
remaining filing fee is paid in full.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-4-