Williams v. United States

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 20, 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
LARRY JAMES WILLIAMS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 16-3270
(D.C. No. 5:14-CC-03169-KHV)
COLONEL SIOBAN J. LEDWITH, (D. Kan.)
Commandant, United States
Disciplinary Barracks,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is, therefore,
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This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
Larry James Williams, Jr., a federal prisoner convicted by military
court-martial and appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, we affirm. 1
Williams was convicted before a general court-martial upon a guilty plea of
one specification of rape of a child, two specifications of aggravated sexual
contact with a child, and one specification of forcible sodomy. Although a
military judge sentenced Williams to confinement for twenty years, the convening
authority approved eight years of confinement based on a pretrial agreement. The
Army Court of Criminal Appeals (“ACCA”) affirmed the convictions and
sentence. In so doing, the ACCA specifically stated that it had considered “the
entire record,” including “the issues personally specified by” Williams. The
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied review.
Williams thereafter commenced the instant § 2241 proceeding in the United
States District for the District of Kansas. Williams’s petition raised four claims:
1) counsel provided constitutionally inadequate assistance, 2) the military judge
failed to properly conduct the providence inquiry before accepting his guilty plea,
3) his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence, and 4) newly
1
Williams does not need a certificate of appealability to appeal from the
district court’s denial of his § 2241 petition. See Knighten v. Commandant, 142
F. App’x 348, 349 (10th Cir. 2005).
-2-
discovered evidence undermines his convictions. The district court dismissed
Williams’s petition, noting the limited review available for convictions arising
from military courts. See Lips v. Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, 997
F.2d 808, 811 (10th Cir.1993). In particular, the district court noted that because
the ACCA gave full and fair consideration to the first three claims set out in
Williams’s petition, federal courts were barred from addressing the merits of
those claims. See id. The district court concluded the fourth claim in Williams’s
petition was waived because it was not presented to the military courts. See
Watson v. McCotter, 782 F.2d 143, 145 (10th Cir. 1986). In any event, the
district court noted the evidence identified by Williams was not newly discovered,
as the military judge reviewed this evidence with Williams during the providence
inquiry. Finally, the district court denied Williams’s motion to transfer the
matter, recognizing Williams commenced the action while incarcerated in the
District of Kansas and concluding “[i]t is well established that jurisdiction
attaches on the initial filing for habeas corpus relief” and “is not destroyed by a
transfer of the petitioner.” See Santillanes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 754 F.2d 887,
888 (10th Cir. 1985).
Federal courts are authorized to grant a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner
“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). In nonmilitary cases, this court reviews a
district court’s dismissal of a § 2241 habeas petition de novo. See Brace v.
-3-
United States, 634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011). “[I]n military habeas
corpus,” however, “the scope of matters open to review, has always been more
narrow.” Lips, 997 F.2d at 811 (quotation omitted). A federal district court’s
review of a military conviction is initially limited to whether the petitioner’s
claims were given “full and fair consideration by the military courts.” Id. at 810.
If so, a federal court should deny the petition without addressing the merits. See
Roberts v. Callahan, 321 F.3d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 2003). An issue has been given
full and fair consideration when it has been briefed and argued at the military
court, even if that court summarily disposed of the issue. See id. at 997; Watson,
782 F.2d at 145. It is the petitioner’s burden to show that a military review was
“legally inadequate” to resolve his claims. Watson, 782 F.2d at 144 (quotation
omitted). When a petitioner failed to present a claim to the military courts, the
federal habeas court will consider the claim waived. Id. at 145.
The district court concluded that the first three grounds in Williams’s
§ 2241 petition were presented to the military courts and given full and fair
consideration. This court agrees with that conclusion, as the ACCA specifically
stated that it had reviewed those issues on the merits in light of the entire record.
We likewise agree with the district court’s conclusion that Williams’s fourth
claim is not, in fact, based on newly discovered evidence and is, therefore, waived
because it was not presented to the military courts. Finally, we have no doubt the
district court acted well within the bounds of its discretion when it denied
-4-
Williams’s belated motion to transfer the case to the district in which he is
currently confined. See Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1222-23 (10th Cir.
2006) (noting that this court reviews the denial of a motion to transfer a case for
abuse of discretion).
For the foregoing reasons, this court AFFIRMS the district court’s denial
of Williams’s § 2241 petition.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-5-