Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01032/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01032-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

-

UNITED 

v. 

ARMANDO 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 'T'.,...,t.,_ r;,.,.,!;t 

MAR 2 71989 

ROBERT .L. HOECKER 

STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

VALLINA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 88-1032 

(D.C. Civ. No. 86-1091JB) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, BARRETT and LOGAN, Circuit Judges. 

Armando Vallina pleaded guilty to a charge of interstate 

travel in aid of racketeering in violation of 18 u.s.c. 

§ 1952(a)(3) (the Travel Act). He took no direct appeal. Vallina 

subsequently filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside 

his conviction. The district court denied relief and he has 

appealed. By agreement of the parties, this case was submitted on 

the briefs. 

The essential elements of a Travel Act violation are that 

defendant "(l) traveled or used facilities in interstate commerce; 

(2) with intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on or 

facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying 

on of a prohibited activity; and (3) thereafter attempted to or 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1032 Document: 010110034993 Date Filed: 03/27/1989 Page: 1 
did in fact engage in one of the proscribed activities." United 

States v. Davis, 780 F.2d 838, 843-44 (10th Cir. 1985). Here, the 

information alleged that Vallina (1) traveled from Florida to New 

Mexico, (2) with the intent to carry on a business enterprise 

involving the possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and 

(3) "thereafter did perform and attempt to perform acts to 

promote, manage, and carry on of said unlawful activity." IR. 

Doc. 118 at 1. Vallina asserts that the information was defective 

because the Travel Act count did not charge a specific overt act 

subsequent to the travel and in furtherance of the unlawful 

activity. 

An indictment or information is sufficient if it 

"(l) contains the elements of the offense charged and clearly 

apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet, and 

(2) enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction as a bar to 

future prosecution for the same offense.'' United States v. 

Lepanto, 817 F.2d 1463, 1465 (10th Cir. 1987). Moreover, "[a]n 

indictment that sets forth the words of the statute generally is 

sufficient so long as the statute itself adequately states the 

elements of the offense." United States v. Darrell, 828 F.2d 644, 

647 (10th Cir. 1987); see United States v. Dadanian, 818 F.2d 

1443, 1447 (9th Cir. 1987) (Travel Act indictment that alleged 

subsequent act in furtherance of illegal activity by tracking 

words of statute was sufficient), modified on reh'g on other 

grounds, 856 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, the information 

tracked the language of the statute and Vallina does not allege 

that the statute itself fails to state the elements of the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-1032 Document: 010110034993 Date Filed: 03/27/1989 Page: 2 
>,..., . 

offense. Nor does he allege that the information failed to 

sufficiently apprise him of the nature of the crime charged or 

that he is in danger of further prosecution for the same crime. 

Thus, we AFFIRM the denial of the§ 2255 motion for substantially 

the reasons contained in the district court's Order of 

December 18, 1987, which adopted the magistrate's Proposed 

Findings and Recommended Disposition of December 2, 1987. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1032 Document: 010110034993 Date Filed: 03/27/1989 Page: 3