United States v. Sheldon

── United States v. Sheldon ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-1365 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 18, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee, v. No. 25-1365 (D.C. No. 1:25-CV-01544-LTB-RTG) GARY SHELDON, (D. Colo.) Petitioner - Appellant. _________________________________ 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Because Mr. Sheldon proceeds pro se, his filings “are . . . construed liberally 1 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.  Appellate Case: 25-1365 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 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 claim