Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-06-2021
Case Style:
United States of America v. TROY ROBERT MEDLIN
Case Number: 20-7018
Judge: Gregory A. Phillips
Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Denver, CO - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm while subject to a domestic violence protective order charges.
In September 2009, a jury found Mr. Medlin guilty of possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and
possession of a firearm while subject to a domestic violence protective order, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(8) and 924(a)(2). In April 2010, the district court
imposed concurrent sentences of 188 months for the drug offense and 120 months for
the firearm offense. We affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Medlin, 408 F.
App’x 203, 206 (10th Cir. 2011).
1
Before beginning his federal sentence, Mr. Medlin pleaded guilty to various
charges in state court and began serving his state sentence in July 2010. Upon his
release from state prison in 2018, Mr. Medlin began serving his federal sentence. In
2019, he filed a pro se motion seeking credit against his federal sentence for the time
he served in state custody. The court denied the motion, noting “this request was
previously addressed directly with correspondence to the Bureau of Prisons.” R. Vol.
4 at 19. That correspondence indicated that the federal sentence was to run
consecutive to the state sentence.2
Mr. Medlin then filed a motion to reconsider,
which the court construed as a notice of appeal.
1 In 2016, the district court reduced the sentence for the drug offense from 188
months to 151 months based on a revision to the Sentencing Guidelines.
2 Mr. Medlin attached to his motion a letter from the Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) acknowledging his request for credit for time spent in state prison and
stating it would inquire of the district court whether the federal sentence was to run
concurrently with the state sentence. Although that letter is the only correspondence
on this subject in the record, the government attached two additional letters to its
brief—one from the BOP to the district court asking whether the federal sentence was
to run concurrently or consecutively to the state sentence, and an unsigned response
from the court, confirming the federal sentence was to run consecutively.
Appellate Case: 20-7018 Document: 010110465867 Date Filed: 01/15/2021 Page: 2
3
DISCUSSION
Mr. Medlin is pro se and therefore, “we liberally construe his filings.” James
v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). But “we will not act as his
advocate.” Id. “Our rules of appeal require appellants to sufficiently raise all issues
and arguments on which they desire appellate review in their opening brief.” Clark
v. Colbert, 895 F.3d 1258, 1265 (10th Cir. 2018) (brackets and internal quotation
marks omitted). “[P]ro se parties [must] follow the same rules of procedure that
govern other litigants,” including the rule requiring that briefs contain “more than a
generalized assertion of error, with citations to supporting authority.” Garrett v.
Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840-41 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (requiring briefs to
explain the reasons for each contention with citations to authorities supporting each
argument). “When a pro se litigant fails to comply with that rule, we cannot fill the
void by crafting arguments and performing the necessary legal research.” Garrett,
425 F.3d at 841 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).
In his brief, Mr. Medlin contends that his federal and state charges were for the
same acts and that he is entitled to credit for “time spent in state[] custody for [the]
same crimes.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 4. But he makes only the conclusory assertions
that “the correct law was never used,” id. at 3, and that the district court failed to
apply the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). As with his
filings in district court, his brief provides no analysis and fails to establish any
Appellate Case: 20-7018 Document: 010110465867 Date Filed: 01/15/2021 Page: 3
4
jurisdictional or substantive basis upon which the district court could have granted
him the relief he sought.
We “will not consider . . . issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner,
unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation.” United States v.
Wooten, 377 F.3d 1134, 1145 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because Mr. Medlin has failed to adequately challenge the district court’s ruling, we
affirm the order denying his motion for credit for time served.
Outcome: The district court’s order is affirmed. We deny Mr. Medlin’s motion for leave
to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees due to the lack “of a
reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts.” Rolland v. Primesource
Staffing, L.L.C., 497 F.3d 1077, 1079 (10th Cir. 2007). The filing fees and costs are
due and payable immediately
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: