Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06047/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06047-0/pdf.json

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

---

, 

' 

FILED 

United Staces Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES . OF AMERICA, . 

Respondent-Appellee, 

v. 

DAVID GEBRON, 

Petitioner-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JUL S 11991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-6047 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-1217-A) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE.pc ami...BAI.DOCK, Circuit Judges. 

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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner David Gebron appeals the district court's denial 

of his motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 2255. 

Petitioner was convicted following a guilty plea to a charge of 

interstate travel with intent to commit extortion and aiding and 

abetting an assault, in violation of 18 u.s.c. SS 2 and 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-6047 Document: 010110129505 Date Filed: 07/31/1991 Page: 1 
., 

t 

1952(a)(2). He was sentenced to five years imprisonment. 

Petitioner did not appeal his conviction, but did file a "Delayed 

Motion for Leave to File an Appeal," and a "Motion to Reduce or 

Correct Sentence," pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b), both of 

which were denied. This court affirmed the denial of petitioner's 

Rule 35(b) motion and dismissed the appeal of his conviction for 

lack of appellate jurisdiction because he failed to timely file 

the notice of appeal. See United States v. Gebron, No. 89-6254 

(10th Cir. May 25, 1990). A second Rule 35(b) motion was also 

denied by the district court, from which the instant appeal was 

taken. 1 

On appeal, petitioner asserts that his guilty plea was 

unlawfully indue-ed and ·involuntary, his 

unconstitutionally ineffective, and that the district court 

imposed an "unduly harsh" 2 sentence. The district court 

1 The government also has sought to dismiss this appeal, alleging 

that petitioner failed to timely file a notice of appeal. 

Petitioner defended the delay on the grounds that he did not 

receive the district court's September 6, 1990, order denying his 

motion until January 24, 1991. In support, petitioner submitted 

an envelope from the district court indicating that the prison 

received the district court's order on January 23, 1991. The 

government appears to concede this issue, stating in its brief on 

the merits that "defendant has perfected his appeal of [the 

district court's September 6, 1990] ruling." Brief of PlaintiffAppellee at 4. In light of these facts, we deny the government's 

motion to dismiss the appeal. 

2 Petitioner also makes allegations in an affidavit asserting 

that the district judge was prejudiced against him. The 

allegations of the judge's bias are based upon one unsupported 

quadruple hearsay statement that the judge was under pressure to 

sentence petitioner to the maximum term possible, and that the 

judge would not change venue, give a continuance, was in the same 

political party as a lawyer for the victim, and would not take 

into account in sentencing petitioner's "lifetime of contributions 

to the community and his country." Appellant's Opening Brief Ex. 

Continued to next page 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6047 Document: 010110129505 Date Filed: 07/31/1991 Page: 2 
J 

concluded, after reviewing the facts and circumstances surrounding 

his representation and sentence, that petitioner failed to show 

that his counsel was ineffective under the standard articulated in 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and that his 

sentence was within the statutory limit for .his offense. We have 

reviewed the record on appeal and agree with the district court 

that petitioner has failed to sustain his burden of showing that 

his guilty plea was involuntary or unlawfully induced, that his 

counsel was ineffective, or that his sentence was not in 

accordance with the law. Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court's September 6, 1990, order for substantially the same 

reasons contained therein. 

AFE1RMED. 

Continued from previous page 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

E. This apparently is a repeat of allegations of bias made in the 

appeal of denial of petitioner's first Rule 35(b) motion. This 

court there said that the claim was not proper as grounds for Rule 

35(b) relief and, additionally, was not proper because raised for 

the first time on appeal. United States v. Gebron, No. 89-6254 at 

2 (10th Cir. May 25, 1990). Thus, the contention is subject to 

dismissal on res judicata grounds. We also find the contention so 

unsupported as to be frivolous. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-6047 Document: 010110129505 Date Filed: 07/31/1991 Page: 3