Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04154/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04154-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL~ D 

United States Co?rt ~! Appenlo Tenth C•r...-.u1 • 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APl O 11992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerl: 

CRAIG WILLIAM MCLACHLAN, 

Movant-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-4154 

(D,C. No. 91-C-144W) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Craig William McLachlan appeals the district court's 

dismissal of his collateral attack on his fifteen-year sentence 

for various drug-related offenses. Mr. McLachlan argues the 

district court should have granted him an evidentiary hearing to 

*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: 91-4154 Document: 010110239110 Date Filed: 04/01/1992 Page: 1 
consider numerous alleged errors contained in his presentence 

report. We affirm. 

In February, 1991, Mr. McLachlan filed a motion to vacate, 

set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2255. 

Mr. McLachlan requested the court correct twenty-one alleged 

errors contained in the presentence report furnished to the court 

prior to his sentencing on March 11, 1987. This case was referred 

to a Magistrate Judge who recommended, in a twenty-seven page 

Report and Recommendation, that Mr. McLachlan's § 2255 motion be 

dismissed. 

In addition to a de novo review of all matters objected to by 

Mr. McLachlan, the district court reviewed de novo all materials 

contained in Mr. McLachlan's file. The court followed the 

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and dismissed Mr. 

McLachlan's § 2255 motion. The court found the Magistrate Judge 

had thoroughly and accurately reviewed the law and the facts 

relating to the motion, and the court fully agreed with the 

conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge. 

We also believe the Magistrate Judge correctly analyzed the 

relevant case law and facts pertinent to Mr. McLachlan's § 2255 

motion. Further, considering the complete review made by the 

Magistrate Judge in his Report and Recommendation, we find further 

discussion of the issues raised by Mr. McLachlan to be inutile . 

We feel compelled, however, to address Mr. McLachlan's 

continued, misplaced reliance upon United States v. Gattas, 862 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-4154 Document: 010110239110 Date Filed: 04/01/1992 Page: 2 
F.2d 1432 (10th Cir. 1988). The decision in Gattas does not 

articulate new law. By 1988, it was established that the failure 

to present an issue on direct appeal bars the defendant from 

raising such an issue in a§ 2255 motion to vacate a sentence 

unless good cause is shown. United States v. Khan, 835 F.2d 749, 

753-54 (10th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1222 (1988); 

United States v. Dunham, 767 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1985); 

Bumgarner v. United States, 758 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir. 1985); United 

States v. Griffin, 765 F.2d 677 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. 

Hanyard, 762 F.2d 1226 (5th Cir. 1985). 

In Gattas, we recognized good cause may be established by 

showing the error could not reasonably be discovered until long 

after sentencing. 862 F.2d at 1435. We specifically noted, 

however, that failure of the district court to comply with Rule 32 

by either making a finding as to the alleged factual inaccuracy in 

the presentence report or making a determination that no such 

finding is necessary because the controverted matter will not be 

taken into account in sentencing is an error which should have 

been apparent to the defendant at the time of sentencing. Id. at 

1434 n.4. As such, defendant could have raised the issue on 

direct appeal or within the time limitation of Rule 35, and his 

failure to do so bars his§ 2255 relief. Id. 

In the present case, the failure of the trial court to 

address the alleged errors in the presentence report should have 

been apparent to Mr. McLachlan at the time of sentencing. At the 

latest, he should have been aware of any violation of Rule 32 at 

the time he filed his direct appeal. Because Mr. McLachlan has 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-4154 Document: 010110239110 Date Filed: 04/01/1992 Page: 3 
failed to show good cause, we agree he is barred from raising this 

issue in the instant motion. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P . Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-4154 Document: 010110239110 Date Filed: 04/01/1992 Page: 4