Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02129/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02129-0/pdf.json

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

---

,. 

.. -11a1J'sJ.L~~p~ls IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE«CS- Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

AUG 3 0 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

JESUS LUIS 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

ALVARADO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-2129 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-198-JC) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Jesus Luis Alvarado appeals the denial of his motion under 28 

u.s.c. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence of 60 

months imprisonment imposed upon him following his plea of guilty 

to one count of possession with intent to distribute more than 100 

kilograms of marijuana. In his motion Alvarado contended that his 

guilty plea was uninformed, that he was denied his right to 

appeal, and that the sentencing guidelines were incorrectly 

applied to determine his sentence. The government filed a brief 

* 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: 91-2129 Document: 010110133321 Date Filed: 08/30/1991 Page: 1 
' 

in response. Then Alvarado, acting prose and through his 

jailhouse lawyer, filed a document entitled "Report to the Court" 

in which he stated "with sadness" that he had been preyed upon by 

an unscrupulous inmate who caused him to file "unmeritorious legal 

claims", and that "Petitioner is forced to admit that the 

government has proved that none of the claims previously submitted 

to the Court herein have any merit." R., Tab 18. Notwithstanding 

this admission by Alvarado, the magistrate judge reviewed his 

§ 2255 motion, issued proposed findings, and recommended denial of 

the motion. Alvarado objected, claiming that he was entitled to 

an evidentiary hearing. The district court adopted the proposed 

findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed 

Alvarado's motion with prejudice. 

On appeal, Alvarado raises only the issue of his claimed 

right to an evidentiary hearing. He contends that the because the 

record does not establish what was stated to him in Spanish by the 

interpreter at the hearing on his guilty plea, an evidentiary 

hearing is required, to allow him to prove his plea was 

uninformed. As he puts it, "For all we know the interpreter could 

have asked the defendant if the moon is made of green cheese." 

R. , Tab 21 at 2. 

The record of this case affirmatively shows that the district 

court conducted a very complete Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing with 

respect to Alvarado's guilty plea, that there was a written plea 

agreement, a written presentence report, and a complete sentencing 

hearing in open court, on the record. Alvarado was represented by 

counsel throughout the proceedings, and there was an interpreter. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-2129 Document: 010110133321 Date Filed: 08/30/1991 Page: 2 
r 

Questions and statements were clearly and succinctly propounded, 

and the answers recorded. Those proceedings are entitled to a 

presumption of regularity which cannot be overcome by Alvarado's 

unsupported allegations, expressed as follows: "This is not to 

say that the interpreter misrepresented anything, but it appears 

the structure of the translation could easily have been 

misconstrued by any person under the circumstances that existed." 

R., Tab 22 at 2. There is, of course, no constitutional or 

statutory requirement that Spanish translations at plea hearings 

be electronically recorded. 

Section 2255 provides that a hearing is not necessary when 

"the files and records of the case conclusively show that the 

prisoner is entitled to no relief .• II And, a decision of the 

district court denying an evidentiary hearing is reviewed for 

abuse of discretion. United States v. Barboa, 777 F.2d 1420 (10th 

Cir. 1985). After a careful review of the record in this case, we 

are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion 

when it declined to hold an evidentiary hearing in 1991 with 

respect to what Alvarado claims he understood the interpreter to 

say during his plea and sentencing hearings in 1989. The judgment 

of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-2129 Document: 010110133321 Date Filed: 08/30/1991 Page: 3