(D.C. No. 5:05-CR-00101-C-1) (W.D. Oklahoma)
Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT [*]
Carolyn B. McHugh Circuit Judge
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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant Quinn Aaron Klein, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's denial of his motion to revoke his supervised release. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291, we affirm.
Mr. Klein pled guilty before the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to one count of wire fraud. The district court sentenced him to 27 months' imprisonment in a federal institution and 36 months of supervised release. After Mr. Klein completed his 27 month term of imprisonment, he was transferred to the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections to serve sentences for independent violations of state law. He remains incarcerated in state prison, and is scheduled to be released in 2017.
While incarcerated in state prison, Mr. Klein filed a motion in the district court requesting that the court revoke his federal term of supervised release, "retrieve him from [the] Oklahoma Dep[artment] of Corrections[, ] and deliver him" into federal custody. Before the government responded, and without a hearing, the district court denied Mr. Klein's motion "as without legal or factual foundation."
Subsequently, Mr. Klein filed a motion with the district court to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the district court determined that any appeal from its order would not be taken in good faith and denied Mr. Klein's motion on that basis. Mr. Klein timely filed an appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to revoke his supervised release and filed a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Mr. Klein challenges the district court's denial of his motion to revoke his supervised release, asserting the district court violated his due process rights by denying his motion without a hearing because he "brought up very serious life or death issues." He also challenges the district court's decision on equal protection grounds, claiming the denial of the motion violated his right to be "equally protected, " and asserting the district court's decision was motivated by bias towards Mr. Klein's sexual orientation.
Because Mr. Klein proceeds pro se, we construe his briefing liberally and hold him to a less stringent standard than we would hold parties represented by counsel. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). Nonetheless, we do not take on the responsibility of serving as Mr. Klein's attorney in constructing his arguments, searching the record, or performing the necessary legal research. Id. at 840–41; see also United States v. Fisher, 38 F.3d 1144, 1147 (10th Cir. 1994) (noting that, even with a pro se litigant, "we are not required to fashion Defendant's arguments for him where his allegations are merely conclusory in nature and without supporting factual averments").
We address each of Mr. Klein's arguments in turn, and conclude neither has merit. We also deny his motion for ...