Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01129/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01129-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

1''!nth Circu;t 

P.UG 13 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-1129 

FELIPE ALAMILLO, 

Defendant-Appellant; 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

For the District of Colorado 

D.C. No. 90-F-1998 

Michael J. Norton, United States Attorney and James P. Moran, 

Assistant U.S. Attorney, Denver, Colorado, on the brief for 

Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Felipe Alamillo, Pro Se, on the brief for Defendant-Appellant. 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 91-1129 Document: 01019731405 Date Filed: 08/13/1991 Page: 1 
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. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for relief 

under 28 u.s.c. § 2255. See United States v. Alamillo, 754 

F. Supp. 827 (D. Colo. 1990). Appellant, Felipe Alamillo, 

contends the district court erred in not vacating his sentence 

because the sentence includes a provision for supervised release. 

We affirm. 

Mr. Alamillo was convicted on three counts relating to the 

possession and distribution of marijuana and sentenced to 

concurrent thirty-three month terms. In addition, the district 

court imposed a three-year term of supervised release under 18 

u.s.c. § 3583. 

In his § 2255 motion in the district court, Mr. Alamillo 

argued supervised release violates the constitutional prohibition 

of double jeopardy; constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; 

violates his rights to free association, due process, and equal 

protection; and, is an impermissible "bill of attainder." In a 

supplemental pleading, Mr. Alamillo argued in the imposition of 

sentence the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. ll(c)(l). 

We agree with the district court's disposition of those issues and 

affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the court's 

published order. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1129 Document: 01019731405 Date Filed: 08/13/1991 Page: 2 
On appeal, Mr. Alamillo raises an argument not presented to 

the district court. He contends the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 

is invalid because it violates the constitutional requirement of 

separation of powers. While we do not ordinarily consider 

arguments raised for the first time on appeal, United States v. 

Orr, 864 F.2d 1505, 1508 (10th Cir. 1988), we note the issue is 

without merit. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 412 

(1989). 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1129 Document: 01019731405 Date Filed: 08/13/1991 Page: 3