Martinez v. United States , 161 F. App'x 770 ( 2006 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
January 5, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FRED ROBERT MARTINEZ,
Petitioner-Appellant, No. 05-2212
v. (D. New Mexico)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (D.C. No. CIV-04-678 RB/ACT)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL, McKAY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a); 10 TH C IR . R. 34.1(G).
Fred Robert Martinez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his application for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because Mr. Martinez is a federal prisoner
and this proceeding arises under § 2241, Mr. Martinez does not need a certificate
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The 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.
of appealability. See McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809,
810 n.1 (10th Cir. 1997). We review the district court’s decision de novo, see
Patterson v. Knowles, 162 F.3d 574, 575 (10th Cir. 1998), and we affirm for
substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s recommended
disposition and the district court’s order.
I. BACKGROUND
On October 20, 1987, Mr. Martinez and his co-perpetrator, Larry James
Mireles, robbed a bank with handguns and took approximately $2,834. Mr.
Martinez was arrested and charged with first-degree armed robbery. At the time
of the robbery, Mr. Martinez was on state parole. On October 26, 1987, the
Corrections Department of New Mexico issued a warrant for his arrest for
violation of the terms of his parole. On December 10, 1987, a federal grand jury
indicted Mr. Martinez for one count of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2113(a) and (d).
Mr. Martinez remained in a Bernalillo County jail until April 25, 1989.
While he was in the county jail, a federal district judge on three occasions issued
a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for Mr. Martinez to appear in federal
court: (1) for his arraignment on March 24, 1988; (2) for his entry of a guilty plea
on May 3, 1988; and (3) for his federal sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment on
July 1, 1988.
-2-
From April 25, 1989 until October 1, 1993, Mr. Martinez served a sentence
for violation of his state parole. On October 1, 1993, he was transported to a
federal prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, to begin serving his federal sentence.
Through an administrative process, Mr. Martinez received credit toward his
federal sentence for time in the Bernalillo County jail between his federal
arraignment (March 24, 1988) and the date he began serving the state parole
violation (April 25, 1989).
On January 20, 1995, Mr. Martinez filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (the “First Application”). He sought credit for the time he spent in state
custody–from April 25, 1989 until October 1, 1993–against his federal term of
imprisonment. In December 1995, the district court dismissed his First
Application with prejudice.
In June 2004, Mr. Martinez filed an application for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Second Application”), requesting credit for the
time he spent in state custody. The magistrate judge found that the Ҥ 2241
application is identical to the First Application. Furthermore, to the extent that
this Second Application raises any new claims, these claims are predicated on the
same factual basis as the First Application and Petitioner has failed to show cause
or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Rec. doc. 28, at 5 (Magistrate Judge’s
Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, filed May 13, 2005). The
-3-
district court adopted the recommended disposition and dismissed with prejudice
Mr. Martinez’s § 2241 application. Rec. doc. 29 (Order, filed June 28, 2005).
The district court granted Mr. Martinez’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal
without prepayment of fees.
II. DISCUSSION
“No circuit . . . shall be required to entertain an application for a writ of
habeas corpus . . . if it appears that the legality of such detention has been
determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for a
writ of habeas corpus . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). As the magistrate judge noted,
Mr. Martinez similarly sought credit for his time spent in state custody in his First
Application in 1995. The district court addressed and rejected his arguments in
1995, concluding that a federal sentence begins on the date a prisoner is received
at the federal penitentiary, see 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a), and state and federal
authorities have discretion as to the order of service of state and federal
sentences. Rec. doc. 18, ex. 15, at 2 (Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and
Recommended Decision, filed Nov. 22, 1995). We agree with the magistrate
judge and district court that Mr. Martinez’s claims under his Second Application
are predicated on the same factual basis as the First Application, and we therefore
are not required to consider the Second Application on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §
2244(a).
-4-
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of
Mr. Martinez’s § 2241 habeas application.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-5-