Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01983/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01983-0/pdf.json

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

---

• 

I 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

FEB 2 91988 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk UNITED 

v. 

RUDOLPH 

STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

) 

) 

G. "BUTCH" STANKO, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

No. 87-1983 

(D.C. No. 84-CR-94-2) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

the District 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. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Rudolph G. Stanko appeals from an order of the district court 

denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence 

pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2255. 

Stanko's arguments regarding disclosure of the presentence 

report and the procedural conduct at the sentencing hearing are 

Appellate Case: 87-1983 Document: 010110028281 Date Filed: 02/29/1988 Page: 1 
rt 

meritless. The notice provided to Stanko and the transcript of 

the sentencing hearing indicate that Stanko and his counsel were 

afforded, in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(A), an 

opportunity to review the presentence report and make objections. 

Furthermore, the notice was sufficient to enable the district 

court to determine, in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 

32(a) (1) (A), whether the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 

32(c)(3)(A) had been complied with. 

Stanko's claims regarding inaccurate information in the 

presentence report and ineffective assistance of counsel have no 

factual basis. Stanko has pointed out no misstatements of facts 

material to sentencing which were relied upon by the district 

court in sentencing him. United States v. Green, 483 F.2d 469 

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1071 (1973). Furthermore, 

because the alleged inaccuracies were not relied on by the 

district court, any alleged ineffective assistance of counsel 

could not be prejudicial. See,~' Johnson v. United States, 

805 F.2d 1284 (7th Cir. 1986); Jones v. United States, 783 F.2d 

1477 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1983 Document: 010110028281 Date Filed: 02/29/1988 Page: 2