Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Oliver v. Raemisch, 10th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Gregory Wade Oliver's request for a certificate of appealability regarding the denial of his application for habeas corpus relief. Oliver argued in his application that he was wrongly denied earned-time credits during his incarceration for refusing to participate in a sex offender treatment program, and requested that the credits be applied to his mandatory parole term. The district court denied Oliver's application, noting that under Colorado law as interpreted by the Colorado Supreme Court, earned-time credits only determine parole eligibility and do not count as time served of the sentence. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court's reasoning and dismissed Oliver's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-04-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-1348

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Gregory Wade Oliver's request for a certificate of appealability regarding the denial of his application for habeas corpus relief. Oliver argued in his application that he was wrongly denied earned-time credits during his incarceration for refusing to participate in a sex offender treatment program, and requested that the credits be applied to his mandatory parole term. The district court denied Oliver's application, noting that under Colorado law as interpreted by the Colorado Supreme Court, earned-time credits only determine parole eligibility and do not count as time served of the sentence. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court's reasoning and dismissed Oliver's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    15 views3 pages

    Oliver v. Raemisch, 10th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Gregory Wade Oliver's request for a certificate of appealability regarding the denial of his application for habeas corpus relief. Oliver argued in his application that he was wrongly denied earned-time credits during his incarceration for refusing to participate in a sex offender treatment program, and requested that the credits be applied to his mandatory parole term. The district court denied Oliver's application, noting that under Colorado law as interpreted by the Colorado Supreme Court, earned-time credits only determine parole eligibility and do not count as time served of the sentence. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court's reasoning and dismissed Oliver's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    FILED

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    TENTH CIRCUIT

    April 29, 2014

    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court

    GREGORY WADE OLIVER,


    PetitionerAppellant,
    v.
    RICK RAEMISCH, Executive
    Director Colorado Department of
    Corrections; JOHN SUTHERS,
    Attorney General,

    No. 13-1348
    (D.C. No. 1:13-CV-01076-LTB)
    (D. Colo.)

    RespondentsAppellees.

    ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

    Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

    Petitioner Gregory Wade Oliver, proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal the
    denial of his application for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241 by the
    United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
    Petitioner is currently serving a mandatory term of parole in relation to a
    sentence he received in Colorado state court. In April 2013, Petitioner filed an
    application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 in the United
    States District Court for the District of Colorado. In his application, Petitioner
    *

    This order 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.

    argued that earned-time credits were wrongfully withheld from him during his
    incarceration as a result of his refusal to participate in Colorados Sex Offender
    Treatment Management Program. Petitioner requested these earned-time credits
    be applied to the parole component of his sentence. In ruling on the application,
    the district court noted that it was bound by the Colorado Supreme Courts
    interpretation of Colorado law, insofar as the Colorado Supreme Courts
    interpretation did not violate federal law. See Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684,
    691 (1975); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). The district court
    then explained the Colorado Supreme Court has held that earned-time credits do
    not count as service of an inmates sentence, see Rather v. Suthers, 973 P.2d
    1264, 1266 (Colo. 1999), but rather serve only to establish parole eligibility, see
    Jones v. Martinez, 799 P.2d 385, 387-88 (Colo. 1990). Therefore, the district
    court concluded that because Petitioner was already on parole, his request for
    relief was moot. Accordingly, the district court denied Petitioners application
    for habeas corpus. The district court further ordered that no certificate of
    appealability would issue because Petitioner failed to make a substantial showing
    of the denial of a constitutional right.
    While Petitioner did not file an application for a certificate of appealability
    with this court, his notice of appeal may be construed as such. See Fed. R. App.
    P. 22(b)(2). After thoroughly reviewing the record and Petitioners filings on
    appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district courts
    -2-

    dismissal of the habeas petition. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
    (2000).
    Therefore, for substantially the same reasons given by the district court, we
    DENY Petitioners request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the
    appeal. However, Petitioners motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment
    of costs or fees is GRANTED.
    Entered for the Court

    Monroe G. McKay
    Circuit Judge

    -3-

    You might also like