Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06323/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06323-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JUL O O 1992 

ROBwRT L. HOECKE!: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellee, 

v . 

JAMES E . HUMPHREYS, JR. , 

Defendant-Petitioner-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk 

) Nos. 91-6239, 91-6323, 

) 91-6352 & 91-6353 

) (D.C. Nos. CR-89-258-T, 

) CIV-91-1260-T 

) & CIV-91-1235-T) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and SAFFELS,** Senior District Judge. 

**Honorable Dale E. Saffels, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appe als. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 1 

Defendant appeals from adverse dispositions of four separate 

* 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. 

1 Defendant's Motion to Strike 

accordingly, denied as moot. 

Appellee's Oral Argument is, 

Appellate Case: 91-6323 Document: 010110259089 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 1
proceedings before the district court, including a Motion for Correction or Reduction of Sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 (Appeal 

No. 91-6239), Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 (Appeal No. 91-6323), Petition for Writ of Mandamus under 

28 U.S.C. § 1651 (Appeal No. 91-6352), and Motion to Vacate or 

Correct Sentence under 28 U.S . C. § 2255 (Appeal No. 91-6353) . All 

of these matters relate, directly or indirectly, to defendant's 

1990 conviction on nine counts of cocaine distribution, 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(l), and one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute, 21 u.s.c. § 846, for which he received ten concurrent 

seven-year sentences, a special parole term of three years, and a 

special assessment of $500. We address each appeal in turn. 

Appeal No. 91-6239 

Defendant sought both mandatory correction and discretionary 

reduction of his sentence from the district court. See Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 35(a) and (b). However, he has limited his appeal to the 

former claim that the sentencing court lacked authority to impose 

a special parole term under the version of§ 84l(a)(l)(A) in force 

at the time of his crimes, i.e . , March through July of 1985 . See 

Appellant's Opening Brief at supp. p. 2(C) . 

Although defendant is correct that at the time in question 

§ 84l(a)(l)(A) authorized substantial prison sentences for major 

drug offenses but lacked any provision for special parole, he actually was convicted and sentenced under§ 841(b)(l)(B), which 

authorized shorter prison sentences for lesser drug offenses but 

did provide for the special parole term imposed. See 

Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 111 s. Ct. 840, 844 (1991) (1984 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6323 Document: 010110259089 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 2
amendments created "peculiar situation in which small-time offenders were subject to special parole, while big-time offenders were 

not"); United States v. Garcia, 879 F.2d 803, 804-05 (10th Cir. 

1989). Although defendant's presentence report discussed larger 

drug quantities falling within the range addressed by 

§ 84l(a)(l)(A), he was in fact charged and convicted for distribution of much smaller amounts punishable under§ 84l(a)(l)(B). A 

federal court has authority only "to impose punishments that are 

... provided for by a federal statute applicable to the offense 

for which the defendant was convicted." United States v. Elkin, 

731 F.2d 1005, 1011 (2d Cir.) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 469 

U.S. 822 (1984). Thus, because defendant's offense of conviction 

fell under§ 84l(b)(l)(B), the district court's discretion, though 

informed by circumstances outside that statute's scope, was nevertheless properly exercised with respect to the particular sentencing alternatives, including special parole, set out therein. See, 

~, United States v. Brantley, 922 F.2d 741, 742 (11th Cir. 

1991) (when defendant was convicted on guilty plea under 

§ 84l(b)(l)(B), special parole term was proper despite involvement 

of drug quantities in range of§ 841(b)(l)(A)). 

As for the conspiracy count, the Government concedes that no 

special parole term could be imposed in light of Bifulco v. United 

States, 447 U.S. 381, 400 (1980). Correction or amendment of 

defendant's judgment of conviction is unnecessary, we believe. 

Although the judgment of conviction does not specifically state 

that the parole term was imposed only for the nine distribution 

convictions and not for the conspiracy conviction, in context, as 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6323 Document: 010110259089 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 3
the court made the sentence on all counts run concurrently, see I 

R. tab 114, 120, and VIII R. 13, and the judge is presumed to know 

the law, the judgment is properly read as imposing special parole 

in conjunction with the substantive counts rather than the conspiracy count. See United States v. Rule, 905 F.2d 497, 498 (1st 

Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of 

defendant's Rule 35 motion. 

Appeal No. 91-6323 

Defendant's petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 

u.s.c. § 2241 was filed with the district court one week after his 

motion for relief under§ 2255. The district court correctly recognized the inappropriateness of the habeas petition, which raised 

additional grounds challenging his conviction and sentence that 

had been omitted from the S 2255 motion, 2 and dismissed it accordingly. Compare Johnson v. Taylor, 347 F.2d 365, 366 (10th Cir. 

1965) (§ 2255 motion is exclusive remedy for challenging validity 

of judgment and sentence) with United States v. Scott, 803 F.2d 

1095, 1096 (10th Cir. 1986) (§ 2241 petition properly used to 

challenge execution rather than validity of sentence). Because 

the petition and§ 2255 motion evidently had been submitted for 

2 These grounds include denial of counsel of choice, ineffective assistance of counsel, abuse of the grand jury process, admission of e vidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, 

and reliance on erroneous information at sentencing. The petition 

also alleges that pilot certificates taken from defendant at the 

time of his arrest as a condition of bail have not been returned 

to him. This last claim, which has nothing to do with the duration or legality of defendant's confinement, is not a proper subject for any type of habeas proceeding. Se e gene rally Preise r v . 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973). 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-6323 Document: 010110259089 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 4
filing simultaneously, however, the district court advised defendant he could pursue any grounds raised in the petition without 

threat of dismissal under Rule 9 following§ 2255 (delayed or successive motions) by promptly moving to amend the motion to include 

them. We consider the district court's disposition a legally correct and fairly sensitive solution to the procedural difficulty 

defendant created for himself. If by electing to pursue the 

present meritless challenge to that disposition, defendant has 

lost the underlying claims to the Rule 9 bar, the responsibility 

for that unnecessary result may not be charged to any error of the 

district court. 

Appeal No. 91-6352 

Defendant initiated this proceeding in the district court to 

secure a writ of mandamus, writ of assistance, or contempt order 

compelling the Federal Bureau of Investigation to produce documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Following referral of the matter under 28 u.s.c. § 636, the magistrate judge 

issued his findings and recommendation that the requested relief 

be denied. On October 11, 1991, before the district court took 

any action on this recommendation, defendant filed a notice of 

appeal to this court "from the Order entered on September 27, 

1991, by Magistrate Judge Howland . " Ultimately, the district 

court denied relief and dismissed the proceeding by order entered 

January 28, 1992. Defendant did not file a notice of appeal following this final disposition. 

Except for proceedings conducted by the magistrate judge on 

consent of the parties pursuant to§ 636(c), a court of appeals 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-6323 Document: 010110259089 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 5
lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal taken directly from a decision of the magistrate judge. See, e.g., Colorado Bldg. & Constr. 

Trades Council v. B.B. Andersen Constr. Co., 879 F.2d 809, 811 

(10th Cir. 1989) (rejecting direct appeal from magistrate judge's 

resolution of post-judgment proceeding); Niehaus v. Kansas Bar 

Ass'n, 793 F.2d 1159, 1164-65 (10th Cir. 1986) (rejecting direct 

appeal from discovery order issued by magistrate judge); United 

States v. Jones, 581 F.2d 816, 817-18 (10th Cir. 1978) (following 

United States v. First Nat'l Bank, 576 F.2d 852, 853-54 (10th Cir. 

1978), and rejecting direct appeal from summons enforcement order 

issued by magistrate judge). Consequently, in light of the procedural circumstances outlined above, we must dismiss this appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction. 3 

Appeal No. 91-6353 

On September 20, 1991, the magistrate judge issued his recommendation that defendant's S 2255 motion be denied. In accord 

with S 636(b)(l) (ten days allotted for filing written objections 

following service of magistrate judge's recommendation), 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) (weekends and holidays excluded from computation of time periods less than eleven days), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 

3 Because of the final, independent authority of the district 

court over referred matters, see. e.g. , Colorado Bldg., 879 F . 2d 

at 811; Gee v. Estes, 829 F.2d 1005, 1009 (10th Cir. 1987)(summarizing discussion of S 636 in United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 

667, 673-76 (1980)), the magistrate judge's recommendation cannot 

be considered simply an early announcement of the district court's 

ultimate decision, and, consequently, the ripening principle derived from Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2) in Lewis v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 

850 F.2d 641 (10th Cir. 1988), is inapplicable here. See Wagoner 

v. Wagoner, 938 F.2d 1120, 1122 (10th Cir. 199l)(explaining source 

and scope of Lewis rule). 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-6323 Document: 010110259089 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 6
6(e) (three days added to time periods triggered by service of 

document by mail), defendant had a total of seventeen days, i.e., 

until October 7, 1991, to file objections. See, e.g., Tushner v. 

United States Dist. Court, 829 F.2d 853, 854-55 (9th Cir. 1987); 

Coles Express v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension 

Fund, 702 F. Supp. 355, 357 (D. Me. 1988). By order entered October 8, 1991, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's 

seemingly unchallenged recommendation. The next day, defendant's 

objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation was entered on 

the docket as filed. 

Prompted by defendant's Motion to Correct and Modify Record 

on Appeal, we obtained defendant's objection to the magistrate 

judge's recommendation to determine when defendant, a prisoner, 

presented it for mailing. See 10th Cir. R. 10.2.4 (court of appeals has access to, and may examine, any of the original papers 

filed in the district court). Because defendant accomplished this 

on October 1, 1991, the objection must be considered timely filed, 

regardless of the date of entry on the docket. See Houston v. 

Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (filing occurs when document is 

delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to court clerk); 

Dunn v . White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1190 (10th Cir. 1989) (applying 

Houston rule to filing of§ 636 objections), cert. denied, 493 

U.S . 1059 (1990). 

In deference to the statutory and constitutional mandate that 

the district court conduct de novo review of challenged magistrate 

judge recommendations, we recently held that "[w]here circumstances indicate that the district court has not conducted such 

7 

Appellate Case: 91-6323 Document: 010110259089 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 7
review following timely objection to the magistrate's report, the 

case must be remanded for compliance with[§ 636]." Summers v . 

Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order denying defendant's§ 2255 motion 

and remand the proceeding for consideration of defendant's timely 

objection. 

In summary, we DISMISS Appeal No. 91-6352, AFFIRM the district court's judgments in Appeals Nos. 91-6239 and 91-6323, and 

VACATE its judgment and REMAND for further proceedings in Appeal 

No. 91-6353. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

8 

Appellate Case: 91-6323 Document: 010110259089 Date Filed: 07/08/1992 Page: 8