Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-08025/USCOURTS-ca10-91-08025-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED 

v. 

ARTHUR 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

) 

) 

P. TRANAKOS, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JUL 1 71992 

ROBERT L. HOECK.EE 

Clerk 

No.91-8025 

(D.C. No. 91-CV-12) 

(D. Wyo.) 

Before LOGAN and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and SAFFELS,** Senior 

District Judge. 

**Honorable Dale E. Saffels, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

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 

Defendant-appellant Arthur P. Tranakos appeals from the 

district court's denial of his Motion To Correct Sentence, filed 

* 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: 91-8025 Document: 010110270436 Date Filed: 07/17/1992 Page: 1
pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2255. Citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 

32(c)(3)(D), he contends he is entitled to resentencing because 

the court which sentenced him failed to rule on the objections he 

made to the presentence investigation report (PSI). Because we 

have determined that Tranakos waived this argument through his 

failure to raise it on direct appeal, we affirm. See Bath v. 

National Ass'n of Intercollegiate Athletics, 843 F.2d 1315, 1317 

(10th Cir. 1988)(appellate court may affirm on any ground finding 

support in the record). 

In 1989, Tranakos was convicted of obstruction of justice, 

conspiracy to -defraud the United States, and preparing and 

presenting fraudulent tax returns. The charges stemmed from a 

government investigation into the sale of common-law trusts used 

to evade federal income taxes. United States v. Tranakos, 911 

F.2d 1422, 1424 (10th Cir. 1990). Tranakos was sentenced to four 

years' imprisonment, to be followed by five years' supervised 

release. This court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal. 

Id. at 1433. 

On January 18, 1991, Tranakos 

Sentence Pursuant To Provisions 

filed a "Motion To Correct 

of 28 u.s.c. § 2255." In that 

motion, he asserted one claim. It stated, "[t]he amount of loss 

by the United States Government in tax, viz, between 6 & 12 

million, was never substantiated by any standard of proof at guilt 

or innocence or sentencing; however, that amount appears in the 

pre-sentence report and impacts the date of parole for Tranakos." 

Appellant's App. Doc. D at 4. The motion did not challenge 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-8025 Document: 010110270436 Date Filed: 07/17/1992 Page: 2
specifically any other part of the PSI. Following a hearing, the 

district court denied the motion. 

On appeal, Tranakos has substantially broadened his attack on 

the sentence. He maintains that the sentencing court did not 

comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c) (3) (D), and, therefore, 

resentencing is required. That rule states: 

(D) If the comments of the defendant and the 

defendant's counsel or testimony or other information 

introduced by them allege any factual inaccuracy in the 

presentence investigation report ... the court shall, 

as to each matter controverted, make (i) a finding as to 

the allegation, or (ii) a determination that no such 

finding is necessary because the matter controverted 

will not be taken into account in sentencing. A written 

record of such findings and determinations shall be 

appended to and accompany any copy of the presentence 

investigation report thereafter made available to the 

Bureau of Prisons. 

At the sentencing hearing, Tranakos' counsel made very specific 

objections to certain factual statements in the PSI. Appellant's 

App. Doc. F at 32-44. It is undisputed that the district court 

never entered written findings concerning those objections. 

Our review of the record reveals, however, that Tranakos did 

not raise this issue on direct appeal. "[T]he failure by a 

defendant to raise a nonconstitutional issue on direct appeal when 

he was able to do so ordinarily will bar collateral review of that 

issue under Section 2255." United States v. Gattas, 862 F.2d 

1432, 1435 (10th Cir. 1988). Tranakos may overcome this bar only 

if he can show cause for the procedural default and actual 

prejudice resulting from the alleged sentencing error. United 

States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 (1982); see also United 

States v. Khan, 835 F.2d 749, 753 (10th Cir. 1987)("[Section] 2255 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-8025 Document: 010110270436 Date Filed: 07/17/1992 Page: 3
is not available to test the legality of matters which should have 

been raised on ~ppeal."), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1222 (1988). 

Federal R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(D) requires the district court 

to reduce to written form its findings regarding alleged 

inaccuracies in the PSI and directs that those findings be 

attached to the presentence report. United States v. Burger, No. 

91-3267, slip op. at 16 (10th Cir. May 21, 1992)(citing United 

States v. Alvarado, 909 F.2d 1443, 1445 (10th Cir. 1990)). Here, 

the district court did not comply with those requirements. 1 That 

fact, however, should have been obvious to Tranakos prior to the 

time he filed - his direct appeal. See Gattas, 862 F.2d at 1435 

(violations of the first part of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(D) are 

obvious at sentencing). Consequently, absent a showing of cause 

and prejudice, we cannot review this error. 

Tranakos has not even attempted to show cause for his default 

or actual prejudice. See Khan, 835 F.2d at 754. Consequently, he 

is barred from raising this issue in a § 2255 motion. The 

judgment of the United States District Court for the District of 

Wyoming is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

1 Contrary to the government's suggestion, it is not clear the 

sentencing court disregarded the disputed facts in the PSI. The 

transcript of the sentencing hearing is unclear on this issue. 

See Appellant's App. Doc.Fat 71-78. 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-8025 Document: 010110270436 Date Filed: 07/17/1992 Page: 4