United States v. Isabella

── United States v. Isabella ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-1254 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 19, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-1254 (D.C. No. 1:14-CR-00207-SKC-1) RANDE BRIAN ISABELLA, (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Rande Brian Isabella, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to correct a clerical error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Because Isabella represents himself, we construe his filings liberally, but we 1 do not act as his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).  Appellate Case: 25-1254 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2026 Page: 2 I. BACKGROUND A jury convicted Isabella of two charges: persuading and attempting to persuade a minor (“S.F.”) to engage in sexual activity for which any person could be charged with a criminal offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (Count 1), and attempting to persuade S.F. to produce child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e) (Count 2). The jury acquitted him of two other charges based on separate interaction with an undercover officer. The district court sentenced Isabella to two concurrent 216-month sentences, and this court affirmed. See United States v. Isabella, 918 F.3d 816, 849 (10th Cir. 2019). A year later, Isabella filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The district court found that one claim was procedurally defaulted and denied the remaining claims on the merits. He then filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Finding Isabella failed to identify a change in the controlling law, previously unavailable evidence, or clear error in the court’s decision, the district court denied the motion. Isabella then sought a certificate of appealability (“COA”) from this court to appeal from the district court’s denial of his § 2255 motion. In considering Isabella’s COA request, this court observed that Count 2 of the indictment charged Isabella both with violating § 2251(a) and attempting to violate it. At the jury instruction conference, the government requested that the court instruct the jury only as to the attempt asp