Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05134/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05134-0/pdf.json

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

---

- ' FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JUL S - 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

MARK ERIC OOTS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v . 

UN I TED STATES OF AMERICA, 

et al., 

Respondent-Appellee. 

No. 89-5134 

(D.C. No. 89-C-248-C 

and 77-CR-103-C) 

(N. Dist. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, 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. 

Petitioner Mark Eric Oots appeals from the district court's 

denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) to vacate his 

sentence. Oots contends that his sentence pursuant to the then-

*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: 89-5134 Document: 010110038249 Date Filed: 07/06/1990 Page: 1 
I 

i n-force Youth-· Corrections Act (YCA), 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et~ 

, -fl.976) , -. viol-ated the, prov-isions of .the YCA. The Government 

concedes the district court's denial of the motion was erroneous. 

Because we agree with both Oots and the Government, we reverse the 

order ·· of the district court. 

Oots pled guilty to a three-count indictment. On the first 

count, the district court sentenced Oots as a youth offender under 

section 5010(b) of the YCA to the custody of the Attorney General 

for treatment and supervision until discharged pursuant to section 

5017(c). On the other two counts, the court suspended the 

imposition of sentence but placed Oots on three years probation to 

run consecutively to the first count. While on probation, Oots 

was convicted of a state offense. His probation was revoked and 

he was sentenced to three years in custody to run consecutively 

with the state sentence. 

The district court conceded that the precedent in our circuit 

precludes imposition of consecutive sentences on each of several 

counts where a defendant is sentenced as a youth offender under 

section 5010(b) of the YCA. See Price v. United States, 384 F.2d 

650, 652 (10th Cir. 1967); see also Roddy v. United States, 509 

F.2d 1145, 1147 (10th Cir. 1975). But citing United States v. 

Calder, 641 F.2d 76, 79 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 912 

(1981), the court concluded that the imposition of probation was 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-5134 Document: 010110038249 Date Filed: 07/06/1990 Page: 2 
not an act of sentencing, and therefore that the sentence imposed 

- here did not--v iolate the .. YCA. -- We . disagree. 

A number of courts conside-r ing the issue have . de.termined that 

the sentencing opti-ons pr·esented by the· YCA are mutually 

exclusive. See,~, Cramer v. Wise, 501 F.2d 959, 962 (5th Cir. 

1974); United States v. Hayes, 474 F.2d 965, 967 (9th Cir. 1973); 

and United States v. Williams, 573 F. Supp. 165, 168 (N.D. Tex. 

1 98 3). These options are probation, see section 5010(a); 

sentencing a defendant to custody of the Attorney General for 

treatment and supervision, see§§ 5010(b) and (c); or sentencing 

as an adult, see§ 5010(d). With regard to these different 

options, the Ninth Circuit has concluded that 

"[t]here is certainly nothing to indicate that the judge 

may select any combination thereof ..•. A 

combination of rehabilitative treatment and retributive 

punishment is not intended and is improper .... [A] 

judge electing to commit a youth offender for treatment 

and supervision under the alternative sentencing 

provisions of the federal Youth Corrections Act is 

foreclosed from imposing an additional punitive penalty 

under another provision." 

Hayes, 474 F.2d at 967. 

We agree that the sentencing options are mutually exclusive 

provisions. 1 Accordingly, the district court's order is reversed 

1 Our holding makes it unnecessary for us to determine whether 

probation constitutes ''sentencing" as envisioned by Tenth Circuit 

precedent. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-5134 Document: 010110038249 Date Filed: 07/06/1990 Page: 3 
... 

and the case - is remanded with instructions to vacate Oats' 

.sentence. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-5134 Document: 010110038249 Date Filed: 07/06/1990 Page: 4