United States of America v. Gary Sheldon

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee,
v.
GARY SHELDON,
Petitioner - Appellant.
No. 25-1365
(D.C. No. 1:25-CV-01544-LTB-RTG)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before McHUGH, BALDOCK, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Gary Sheldon, proceeding pro se,1 appeals the district court’s denial of his
application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
1 Because Mr. Sheldon proceeds pro se, his filings “are . . . construed liberally
and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks omitted). However, the court will not act as his advocate or
“take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing arguments and
searching the record.” Id.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 18, 2026
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 25-1365 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 1

-- 1 of 4 --

2
I. Background
Mr. Sheldon pleaded guilted to one count of receipt and distribution of child
pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). The district court
sentenced him to 188 months’ imprisonment followed by a term of supervised release
for life. Mr. Sheldon filed an untimely motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for
post-conviction relief challenging the constitutionality of his supervised release term,
which the district court denied. Mr. Sheldon later filed a motion to modify his
supervised release conditions, arguing the term of his supervised release was
excessive. The district court denied that motion without prejudice to the extent the
motion constituted a successive or collateral attack on his sentence because he had
not obtained permission from the relevant circuit court to file a successive § 2255
motion.
Mr. Sheldon then filed an application for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. In that application, he asserted that the execution or application of his
supervised release terms violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth
Amendment, that a term of supervised release constitutes a separate sentence, and
that a lifetime term of supervised release is excessive because it impermissibly
expands 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k).
The district court observed that Mr. Sheldon had raised similar claims in
another proceeding but ultimately withdrew them after the district court received a
recommendation from a magistrate judge to dismiss the action for lack of
Appellate Case: 25-1365 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 2

-- 2 of 4 --

3
jurisdiction. The district court construed the withdrawal as a voluntary dismissal
under Federal Rule of Civil procedure 41(a). That action was dismissed.
Mr. Sheldon sought § 2241 relief again, raising essentially the same claims as
he did in the dismissed action. The district court referred this new matter to a
magistrate judge for recommendation. The magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation concluding that Mr. Sheldon did not meet the threshold burden of
demonstrating that the remedy available under § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective.
See generally Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 469, (2023) (“[Section] 2255(e) bars a
federal prisoner from proceeding under § 2241 ‘unless the § 2255 remedy by motion
is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.’” (brackets and
ellipsis omitted)). The magistrate judge therefore recommended the action be
dismissed without prejudice for lack of statutory jurisdiction.
After reviewing the report and recommendation de novo and overruling
Mr. Sheldon’s objections, the district court adopted it in whole and dismissed the
action. Mr. Sheldon timely appealed.
II. Discussion
As he did in district court, Mr. Sheldon argues that jurisdiction is proper under
§ 2241 because he seeks injunctive relief, that the supervised release term is a second
and separate sentence, and that the supervised release term is excessive because it
impermissibly expands 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k). Having reviewed the brief and record,
we conclude no reversible error occurred below, and we affirm the dismissal of the
§ 2241 claim for substantially the same reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report
Appellate Case: 25-1365 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
and recommendation and adopted by the district court. We grant Mr. Sheldon’s
motion to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees (Dkt. No. 6).
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 25-1365 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 4

-- 4 of 4 --