United States v. McCloud , 48 F. App'x 318 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    OCT 16 2002
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    TENTH CIRCUIT                       PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    No. 01-3076
    D.C. Nos. 96-CR-20031-01-DES and
    v.
    00-CV-3342-DES
    (D. Kansas)
    IKE MCCLOUD,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    Before HARTZ, ALDISERT** and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges.
    ________________________________
    In 1996, Defendant-Appellant Ike McCloud was convicted of two counts of
    distribution of cocaine in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1). He was sentenced to two
    terms of 360 months in prison to be served concurrently, and he appealed. Our court
    affirmed the convictions and sentence. United States v. McCloud, 
    127 F.3d 1284
     (10th
    Cir. 1997).
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
    law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the
    citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
    the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    The Honorable Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the
    **
    Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
    McCloud then filed in the district court a motion under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     to vacate
    or correct his sentence. He asserted that his sentence was illegal because it was based in
    part on a calculation of drug quantity that was not made by the jury, and he relied on
    Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
     (2000). The district court denied relief, concluding
    that the rule of Apprendi is not applicable in an initial proceeding for collateral review.
    The judge issued a Certificate of Appealability as to the Apprendi issue. On appeal from
    the district court’s denial of relief, Mr. McCloud filed a pro se brief, and then we
    appointed counsel who filed an additional brief.1
    A panel of this court recently held that the rule of Apprendi will not be applied on
    an initial application for collateral review. United States v. Mora, 
    293 F.3d 1213
    , 1217-
    19 (10th Cir. 2002) pet. for cert. filed, 8/30/02 (no. 02-6125).2 Thus, the ruling made by
    Judge Saffels in the instant case is now the rule of this circuit. This precedent requires us
    to reject Mr. McCloud’s argument in this appeal.
    Two additional issues have been raised in the briefs, but like the primary issue they
    are based on the premise that Apprendi should be applied in this collateral proceeding.
    1
    Defendant-Appellant in his pro se brief requested oral argument. However, after
    examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that
    oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.
    App. P. 34 (a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This cause is therefore ordered submitted without
    oral argument.
    2
    We earlier held that the Apprendi rule will not be applied in a successive
    application for collateral review. Browning v. United States, 
    241 F.3d 1262
    , 1265 (10th
    Cir. 2001).
    -2-
    Accordingly, neither of these issues support Mr. McCloud’s claim for relief. In his pro se
    brief, Mr. McCloud asserts that his sentence was unlawfully calculated because his
    offense level was increased by two points for possession of a firearm in the course of his
    criminal activity (see United States v. McCloud, 
    127 F.3d at 1291
    ), when that fact was not
    pleaded in the indictment. In the brief submitted by appointed counsel, an argument is
    made that greater penalties should not be imposed in cases involving crack cocaine unless
    the indictment specifically charges the defendant with a crime involving that form of the
    drug.
    The district court did not grant a Certificate of Appealability on these issues, and
    we decline to do so because Mr. McCloud has not made the required “substantial showing
    of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
     (c)(2); United States v.
    Gordon, 
    172 F.3d 753
    , 754 (10th Cir. 1999). Mr. McCloud’s arguments on these points
    depend on retroactive application of Apprendi which is impermissible.
    Accordingly the order denying relief under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     is
    AFFIRMED.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    William J. Holloway, Jr.
    Circuit Judge
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-3076

Citation Numbers: 48 F. App'x 318

Judges: Hartz, Aldisert, Holloway

Filed Date: 10/16/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024