United States v. Pumphrey , 651 F. App'x 736 ( 2016 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 1, 2016
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 15-4156
(D.C. Nos. 2:14-CV-00144-CW and
WILLIAM CLYDE PUMPHREY, 2:13-CR-00197-CW-1)
(D. Utah)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Mr. William Pumphrey was convicted in the United States District
Courts of both the District of New Mexico and the District of Utah. In the
second conviction, the United States District Court of the District of Utah
ran its sentence concurrently with the first sentence imposed by the District
of New Mexico.
*
We do not believe oral argument would be helpful. As a result, we are
deciding the appeal based on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G).
This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value under Fed.
R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
After unsuccessfully appealing both convictions, Mr. Pumphrey
invoked 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that
 the government had initiated the Utah prosecution vindictively
and
 the sentence was improperly calculated.
The district court denied relief on both claims, and Mr. Pumphrey appeals the
ruling on the second claim.
On this claim, the district court denied relief on the ground that the
sentence has been correctly administered. We need not address this reasoning
because the claim is not cognizable under § 2255. This statute is used to
challenge the validity of a federal conviction or sentence. United States v.
Eccleston, 521 F.3d 1249, 1253 (10th Cir. 2008). But Mr. Pumphrey is not
challenging the validity of his conviction or sentence. Instead, his claim
involves execution of the sentence, which must be brought under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164 (10th Cir. 1996); Prost v. Anderson,
636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir. 2011). As a result, we affirm the denial of relief on
this claim.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
2