Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06256/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06256-0/pdf.json

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

---

., 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

NASIR ABD'ALLAH FARUQ, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

L tt .-

united SttU , .~:ov.H pf A FlilS 

iefl k Cir:xit 

l="EG 1-~1 

ROBERT L. :HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 90-6256 

v. ) 

) 

STEPHEN W. KAISER, Warden, ) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-458-D) 

(W. Dist. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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. 

Nasir Abd'Allah Farug appeals the district court's dismissal 

of his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 

2254 (1988). Farug was convicted in state court of two counts of 

robbery with firearms, one count of second degree burglary, 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6256 Document: 010110099904 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 1 
; 

one count of oral sodomy. On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of 

Criminal Appeals reduced the sentences imposed on these counts, 

concluding that the original sentences were excessive and may have 

been the result of prosecutorial misconduct. On appeal from the 

denial of habeas relief, Farug asserts that: (1) the reduction of 

his sentence on appeal contravened the holding in Clemons v. 

Mississippi, 110 s. Ct. 1441 (1990); (2) his two robbery 

convictions amounted to double jeopardy under Grady v. Corbin, 110 

S. Ct. 2084 (1990); and (3) he was sentenced on the basis of 

materially untrue information in violation of Townsend v. Burke, 

334 U.S. 736 (1948). 

We grant Faruq's application for a certificate of probable 

cause and we affirm. We have carefully reviewed the district 

court's memorandum opinion and we are in substantial agreement 

with the analysis and authorities set out therein. Faruq's claim 

based on the modification of his sentence by the state appellate 

court is foreclosed by our opinion in Carbray v. Champion, 905 

F.2d 314 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 1990 W.L. 253167 (1991). 

Faruq's reliance on Grady v. Corbin, 110 S. Ct. 2084, to support 

his double jeopardy argument is misplaced, because Grady is 

concerned only with successive prosecutions and not with the 

allegation of multiple punishments made here. 

Finally, we find no merit in Faruq's claim that he was 

sentenced in violation of Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736. Under 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6256 Document: 010110099904 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 2 
• 

that case, due process is violated when a sentence is imposed on 

the basis of information that is materially false. Id. at 739-40; 

see Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552, 556 (1980); United 

States v. Sunrhodes, 831 F.2d 1537, 1542 (10th Cir. 1987). Farug 

claims that his sentencing was based on false information because 

his four former convictions arose from only two transactions or 

series of events, and that he therefore actually should have had 

only two former convictions instead of four. We agree with the 

district court that, even assuming only two criminal transactions 

occurred, enhanced punishment was proper under the applicable 

state enhancement provision. Moreover, while Farug contends that 

his criminal history should have resulted in only two convictions 

instead of four, he does not contend that the facts underlying his 

criminal history are themselves inaccurate. 

The dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus is 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6256 Document: 010110099904 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 3