Gonzales v. United States ( 2019 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 19, 2019
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
DARREN MICHAEL GONZALES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 18-8064
(D.C. No. 2:17-CV-00158-ABJ)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (D. Wyo.)
Respondent - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before LUCERO, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Darren Gonzales appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241petition seeking release from pretrial detention. Exercising jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I
Gonzales was indicted on a variety of counts related to tax fraud and drug
distribution. While in pretrial detention, he filed an ultimately unsuccessful petition
under § 2241 seeking release from custody. Gonzales pled guilty to the charged
*
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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent,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.
crimes and was sentenced to 72-months’ imprisonment. The district court
subsequently dismissed his § 2241 petition as moot, entering an order on March 7,
2018. Gonzales filed a notice of appeal on September 7, 2018.
II
The government argues that Gonzales’ appeal was untimely under Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). However, the district court did not enter a judgment following its
March 7 order. Under Rule 4(a)(7), if a judgment is not entered then the 60-day time
limit set forth in Rule 4(a)(1) begins after “150 days have run from entry of the . . .
order.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii); see also Constien v. United States, 628 F.3d
1207, 1211 (10th Cir. 2010). Because Gonzales filed his appeal within 210 days, his
appeal was timely filed.
III
“When reviewing the denial of a habeas petition under § 2241, we review the
district court’s legal conclusions de novo and accept its factual findings unless
clearly erroneous.” al-Marri v. Davis, 714 F.3d 1183, 1186 (10th Cir. 2013).
Because Gonzales is pro se, we construe his filings liberally but stop short of acting
as his advocate. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Gonzales does not dispute he entered a guilty plea in conjunction with his
criminal case. If a petitioner “is now held as a convicted defendant rather than
merely on a criminal charge not yet brought to trial, the issue as to the legality of his
continued pretrial detention has been mooted.” Williams v. Slater, 317 F. App’x 723,
725 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (emphasis in original). “Failure to satisfy the
2
requirements of [the mootness] doctrine places a dispute outside the reach of the
federal courts.” Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151, 1164 (10th Cir. 2016). The
district court correctly dismissed Gonzales’ § 2241 petition.
IV
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
3