Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07120/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07120-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS .r'' I .. • & .:J .L 

United St,;,i.m!: <.'o,.trt o: .1· ;. ;;:,,.: , 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ';' ·""" i · · ..... 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

DONALD CHARLES OLSON, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

SEP 1 6 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKE -~ 

Clerk 

) No. 91-7120 

) (D.C. No. CIV-90-618-S) 

) (E.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, and BARRETT, Circuit Judge, and 

BRIMMER,** District Judge. 

**Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, 

District Court for the District 

designation. 

District Judge, United States 

of Wyoming, sitting by 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

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: 91-7120 Document: 010110322325 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 1
Defendant appeals the district court's denial of his Motion 

to Vacate Sentence, filed pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2255. On 

appeal, Defendant contends that his sentence should be vacated 

because: (1) evidence of a codefendant's guilty plea was presented 

during his trial and he was prejudiced by that evidence because 

the jury was neither admonished nor given a curative instruction 

in regard thereto; (2) he was not given sufficient time to review 

the presentence report before he was sentenced; and (3) the counts 

of the indictment of which he was convicted were duplicitous, 

thereby resulting in multiple convictions for a single occurrence. 

We affirm. 

Defendant failed to raise these issues on direct appeal. 

"[O]nce a defendant has been convicted, his final judgment 

'commands respect' and a § 2255 action cannot supplant an 

appeal . . " United States v. Khan, 835 F. 2d 749, 753 ( 10th 

Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1222 (1988). Section 2255 "is 

not available to test the legality of matters which should have 

been raised on appeal." Id. 

Defendant argues that 

codefendant's guilty plea 

presentation 

without a 

of evidence of his 

curative instruction 

constitutes plain error and that, therefore, we should consider 

the issue even though it was not raised on direct appeal. 

Contrary to Defendant's assertion, the proper standard for 

determining whether an issue can be considered for the first time 

in a§ 2255 appeal is "cause and actual prejudice." United States 

v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167 (1982). To obtain relief, Defendant 

"must show both (1) 'cause' excusing his double procedural 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-7120 Document: 010110322325 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 2
default, and (2) 'actual prejudice' resulting from the errors of 

which he complains." Id. at 168. 

In an attempt to establish "cause," Defendant attributes his 

failure to raise the first issue on direct appeal to mere 

oversight by counsel. 1 As to the other two issues, Defendant does 

not even offer, let alone establish, cause for his failure to 

raise the issues on direct appeal. Defendant has failed to meet 

the first prong of the Frady standard. Even if Defendant could 

show sufficient cause, our review of the record on appeal shows 

that no "actual prejudice" resulted from the errors of which 

Defendant complains. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

1 Defendant does not 

assistance of counsel. 

Entered for the Court 

Clarence A. Brimmer 

District Judge 

argue that he received 

3 

ineffective 

Appellate Case: 91-7120 Document: 010110322325 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 3