Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03039/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03039-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED 

v. 

GARY L. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) No. 

) (Dist. Ct. 

) ( D. 

WILSON, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

FI LED 

u~itcd States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cira.1it 

SEP 7 - 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

C!erk 

89-3039 

No. 88-3094-S) 

Kansas) 

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the cause is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant Gary L. Wilson was convicted in the United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas of kidnapping a young 

woman and transporting her in interstate commerce for sexual 

gratification in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 1201, and sentenced to 

life imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to 

vacate the sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district 

* 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: 89-3039 Document: 01019973435 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 1 
court denied that motion, and appellant filed a motion for 

reconsideration. The district court denied that motion, and 

appellant appeals. 

Appellant raises four issues on appeal: (1) whether the 

sentencing court erred in refusing to exercise its disc r etion at 

the time of sentencing to determine if appellant would derive 

benefit from treatment under the Youth Corrections Act ("YCA''); 

(2) whether appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel; 

(3) whether appellant was denied a fair trial; and (4) whether the 

sentencing judge was biased. We reject appellant's second issue 

for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district 

court in its orders of July 6, 1988 and February 6, 1988. We also 

reject appellant's third and fourth issues because he did not 

raise them in his section 2255 petition before the district court. 

Finally, we need not address appellant's first issue of 

whether the sentencing court erred in failing to determine whether 

appellant would have benefited from the YCA. The YCA was designed 

to promote rehabilitation of youthful offenders through a program 

that would cure rather than accentuate the antisocial tendencies 

that lead to the commission of crime. See Dorszynski v. United 

States, 418 U.S. 424, 431-36 (1974); Annotation, Youth Corrections 

Act, 11 A.L.R. Fed. 499 (1972); Annotation, Youth Corrections Act, 

54 A.L.R. Fed. 382 (1981). Thus any error committed by the 

sentencing court back in 1967, when appellant was convicted, is 

now moot because appellant has no possibility whatsoever of 

deriving any of the benefits contemplated by the YCA even if a 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 89-3039 Document: 01019973435 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 2 
sentencing court were now to determine that he might have derived 

benefit under the program when he was originally sentenced. 

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the 

district court dismissing appellant's habeas petition. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

- 3 -

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3039 Document: 01019973435 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 3