Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01215/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01215-0/pdf.json

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

---

I 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

DENNIS REED GRENEMYER, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

FILED .. A,. .. United States Cio~ ~f Ap.,. ... J .. Tenth C!rcu1t 

SEP 13 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

V • ) 

) 

FRANK GUNTER: DUANE L. WOODARD, ) 

Attorney General of the State ) 

of Colorado ) 

No. 91-1215 

(D.C. No. 90-B-1296) 

(D. Colorado) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for sanctions 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. After reviewing the record and the 

briefs of the parties, appellant's motion for leave to appeal 

without prepayment of costs is GRANTED, and the judgment of the 

*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: 91-1215 Document: 010110090150 Date Filed: 09/13/1991 Page: 1 
I 

district court is AFFIRMED substantially for the reasons contained 

in its order of May 24, 1991. 1 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

1

Appellant argues the district court did not deal with his motion 

for sanctions against "Appellees." While parties are subject to 

Rule 11 sanctions, Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic 

Communications Enterprises. Inc., 111 S. Ct. 922 (1991), the only 

persons named as respondents in the original petition were Frank 

Gunter and former Attorney General Duane Woodard. There is no 

indication in the record that either made the representations 

which were relied upon by counsel for the respondents or that they 

personally made false statements to the district court. 

Petitioner's only "evidence" in support of his Rule 11 motion was 

hearsay contained in a newspaper article. The district court 

properly disregarded that hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1215 Document: 010110090150 Date Filed: 09/13/1991 Page: 2