Conrady v. Proffitt

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: September 16, 2025
• Docket: 24-3167
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-3167 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 16, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court WYATT A. CONRADY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v. No. 24-3167 (D.C. No. 5:24-CV-03078-JWL) LAURA PROFFITT, (D. Kan.)

Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, BACHARACH, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

This appeal grew out of a military court’s decision. After an

unfavorable decision, an aggrieved servicemember can pursue habeas relief

in federal district court if the military court had a chance to consider the

issue. Here, however, a servicemember sought habeas relief on an issue

* The parties haven’t requested oral argument, and it would not help us decide the appeal. So we have decided the appeal based on the record and the parties’ briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). Appellate Case: 24-3167 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2025 Page: 2

that he hadn’t raised in military court. So the district court dismissed the

habeas petition. We affirm.

The servicemember was convicted of solicitation of a child to

produce child pornography and convicted in a general court-martial. 1 The

servicemember unsuccessfully sought relief in the United States Army

Court of Criminal Appeals and the United States Court of Appeals for the

Armed Forces. After pursuing relief in these courts, the servicemember

sought habeas relief in federal district court, claiming that the military

court had lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Code of Military Justice

because the solicitation involved a child rather than a servicemember.

The district court could consider this claim only if the

servicemember had exhausted available remedies in the military court

system. Noyd v. Bond, 395 U.S. 683, 693 (1969); Khan v. Hart, 943 F.2d

1261, 1263 (10th Cir. 1991). And the servicemember didn’t raise this claim

in any of the military tribunals.

He argues that he didn’t need to do so because subject-matter

jurisdiction cannot be waived. But the Supreme Court has recognized an

exception to the exhaustion requirement in military tribunals when they

1 The servicemember was also convicted of knowingly exposing his genitals to a child and intentionally communicating indecent language in order to arouse or gratify his sexual desires. But our appeal does not involve these charges.

2 Appellate Case: 24-3167 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 09/16/2025 Page: 3

lack personal jurisdiction. See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 585

n.16 (2006). The servicemember appears to assume that this exception also

applies to challenges involving a military tribunal’s subject-matter

jurisdiction. Even if Mr. Conrady is right about this assumption, it

wouldn’t help him because the applicability of the Uniform Code of

Military Justice involves sufficiency of the evidence rather than subject-

matter jurisdiction. See United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 58, 68–69

(1951) (distinguishing between subject-matter jurisdiction and

consideration whether the underlying facts would constitute a crime). As a

result, the servicemember needed to exhaust his claim in the military

tribunals. He admits that he failed to do that, so the district court was right

to dismiss the habeas claim.

Affirmed.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge