Lane v. Maye , 667 F. App'x 698 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                 FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            July 7, 2016
    _________________________________
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    MARK ALAN LANE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.                                                        No. 16-3078
    (D.C. No. 5:16-CV-03056-JWL)
    CLAUDE MAYE, Warden,                                        (D. Kan.)
    Respondent - Appellee.
    _________________________________
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    _________________________________
    Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________
    Mark Lane appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Exercising
    jurisdiction under § 1291, we affirm.
    Lane pled guilty to conspiracy to launder monetary instruments and conspiracy
    to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in the Southern District of
    Indiana. He is detained at the U.S. Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. Lane’s
    convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, United States v. Lane, 52 F. App’x 838
    *
    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). 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 This order and judgment is not binding
    precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
    (7th Cir. 2002), and his § 2255 motion was denied, see United States v. Lane, 
    2005 WL 1421496
    (S.D. Ind. June 16, 2005) (unpublished).
    Lane then filed a § 2241 petition in the District of Kansas alleging that his
    sentence is invalid and his judgment of commitment is void. The district court
    dismissed the petition without prejudice, concluding Lane’s challenge should have
    been brought in the sentencing court under § 2255. Lane filed a motion to reconsider
    and a Rule 59(e) motion, both of which were denied. Lane timely appealed.
    We review de novo the dismissal of a § 2241 petition. Brace v. United States,
    
    634 F.3d 1167
    , 1169 (10th Cir. 2011). We agree with the district court that Lane’s
    petition attacks the legality of his conviction. Such filings generally must be made as
    § 2255 motions in the sentencing court. Id.1 The district court properly determined
    that it lacked jurisdiction over Lane’s petition. See Abernathy v. Wandes, 
    713 F.3d 538
    , 557-58 (10th Cir. 2013).
    The district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is AFFIRMED. Because
    Lane has not advanced a “reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in
    support of the issues raised on appeal,” Watkins v. Leyba, 
    543 F.3d 624
    , 627 (10th
    1
    Lane does not advance any substantive argument on appeal regarding
    § 2255(e)’s savings clause, and has thus waived the issue. See Adler v. Wal-Mart
    Stores, Inc., 
    144 F.3d 664
    , 679 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Arguments inadequately briefed in
    the opening brief are waived.”); see also Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer,
    
    425 F.3d 836
    , 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[P]ro se parties [must] follow the same rules of
    procedure that govern other litigants.” (quotation omitted)).
    2
    Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted), his motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
    Entered for the Court
    Carlos F. Lucero
    Circuit Judge
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-3078

Citation Numbers: 667 F. App'x 698

Filed Date: 7/7/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023