Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06251/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06251-0/pdf.json

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

---

I • 

FIL . D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uoittd States Courc of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAR 211 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ELMER L. QUINN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-6251 

(D.C. No. CR-88-81-A) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. 

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. 

Elmer L. Quinn appeals the district court's denial of his 28 

u.s.c. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction for conspiracy to 

distribute heroin in violation of 21 u.s.c. § 846. In 1988 Quinn 

entered a guilty plea to the crime. 

* 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: 89-6251 Document: 01019966446 Date Filed: 03/21/1990 Page: 1 
Quinn argues that he was denied due process because he did 

not receive a copy of the district court's opinion and order dated 

May 15, 1989, denying his§ 2255 and Rule 35 motions. The entry 

on the docket sheet of the district court indicates that the order 

was mailed to him. Regardless of whether Quinn received the order 

or not, he cannot show a due process violation because he did 

receive actual notice of the determination in time to perfect his 

appeal, and he has taken the appeal now before us. Thus, he can 

show no constitutional deprivation. 

With regard to the substance of Quinn's challenge, we cannot 

significantly add to the analysis set forth in the district 

court's opinion and order. Quinn made additional arguments after 

the district court's May 15, 1989, opinion and order which the 

district court declined to address as untimely. Even if they were 

timely, they are frivolous. 21 U.S.C. § 903 clearly contemplates 

a defendant can be punished for the same acts under both state and 

federal law. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not invalidate this 

scheme. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6251 Document: 01019966446 Date Filed: 03/21/1990 Page: 2