Filed: Patrick Fisher
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsFiled: Patrick Fisher
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsF I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
FEB 5 1998
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
STEVEN R. MUELLER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
LOUIS E. BRUCE; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF KANSAS, Carla J.
Stovall,
No. 97-3184
(D.C. No. 96-CV-3078-DES)
(D. Kan.)
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. 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.
Steven R. Mueller, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district courts
order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2254. The basis for his petition are his assertions that certain provisions of the
Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 75-5217(b), 214724(b)(2), and 22-3717(f), violate his constitutional right to equal protection of
the laws of the United States. At the time Mueller took his appeal, decisions of
this court had applied the certificate of appealability requirements of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) to cases filed
prior to AEDPAs effective date, see, e.g., Lennox v. Evans, 87 F.3d 431, 432-34
(10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 746 (1997). Accordingly, the district
court considered Muellers case and denied a certificate of appealability. Mueller
then filed motions in this court for the issuance of a certificate. Further,
respondent notified this court that he would not file a response brief. Since that
time, in light of the Supreme Courts opinion in Lindh v. Murphy, 117 S. Ct. 2059
(1997), we have held that habeas petitioners who filed their applications with the
district court prior to AEDPAs effective date need not obtain a certificate of
appealability to proceed in this court. See United States v. Kunzman, 125 F.3d
1363, 1364 n. 2 (10th Cir. 1997). Therefore, we need not address Muellers
motions for a certificate of appealability. We grant a certificate of probable cause
under pre-AEDPA authority, and proceed to review his appeal on the merits.
-2-
Mueller is currently serving several concurrent sentences in Kansas,
including a ten-year to life sentence for aggravated robbery. He was released on
parole in 1994 and arrested in 1995 for violation of parole; his parole was
revoked later that year. Because his infraction was only a technical violation of
parole, he was not eligible to have his sentences converted under the limited
retroactivity provisions of the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, enacted in
1993. Mueller contends that the Acts language, creating different classes of
inmates and providing that the limited retroactivity provisions apply only to some-and specifically not to him--results in an equal protection violation.
Upon careful review of the entire record on appeal and applicable case law,
we agree with the district court that Muellers contentions are without merit.
Both the Kansas courts and the district court have addressed similar arguments
and rejected them. See Chiles v. State, 869 P.2d 707 (Kan. 1994); Jones v. Bruce,
921 F. Supp. 708 (D. Kan. 1996). Muellers contentions that these cases are
distinguishable because of his factual circumstances are likewise without merit.
See McGann v. McKune, 911 P.2d 811 (Kan. App. 1995) (addressing equal
protection arguments based on failure to convert sentences under KSGA due to
technical violation of parole). The judgment of the United States
-3-
District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. All outstanding motions
are denied as moot. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-4-
