Waters v. Baysore

── Waters v. Baysore ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 26-1092 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 05/12/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 12, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court THOMAS WATERS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 26-1092 (D.C. No. 1:25-CV-03476-LTB-RTG) BAYSORE, ADX Warden; UNITED (D. Colo.) STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before MATHESON, MURPHY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Thomas Bradford Waters appeals from an order of the district court (1) dismissing without prejudice Waters’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition for lack of statutory jurisdiction; and (2) denying Waters’s motion to amend because Waters’s 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.  Appellate Case: 26-1092 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 05/12/2026 Page: 2 proposed new claims were not cognizable under § 2241. This court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms. 1 Following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Waters was convicted of being a felon unlawfully in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See United States v. Waters, 697 F. App’x 760, 761, 763 (4th Cir. June 21, 2017). The Fourth Circuit affirmed Waters’s conviction on appeal. See id. at 768. Waters sought collateral relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting his conviction was invalid under the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019). See United States v. Waters, 64 F.4th 199, 201-03 (4th Cir. 2023). His request for collateral relief was ultimately denied because “the record [did] not support the notion that, had the jury been instructed as to the knowledge-of-status element of the § 922(g) offense, Waters could conceivably demonstrate that he lacked the requisite knowledge of his felon status at the time he committed the charged offense.” United States v. Waters, No. 24-6688, 2025 WL 1984018, at *1 (4th Cir. July 17, 2025). Waters thereafter filed the instant § 2241 petition in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, seeking to challenge his § 922(g)(1) conviction. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for initial proceedings pursuant to 1 Waters’s request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is denied as moot. A COA is not required when a federal prisoner like Waters appeals the denial of a § 2241 habeas petition. McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 810 n.1 (10th Cir. 1997). 2  Appellate Case: 26-1092