Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06001/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06001-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS PlLitD . TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

LIN EDWARD DAVIS, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

United State~ Cou•t of Appeals 

T~nth Cir:ui! 

NOV 2 6 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6001 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-2209-T) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Lin Edward Davis has filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct a sentence by a person in 

federal custody. This motion was filed after his conviction but 

before he was sentenced. On January 22, 1990, the district court 

denied the motion without prejudice as premature, noting that 

* 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: 90-6001 Document: 010110051353 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 1 
l 

t I , 

~-

• 

•~ after sentence Davis could perfect an appeal in which he could 

raise the contentions set forth in his§ 2255 motion. If Davis 

fails to do so, he will run the risk that consideration of those 

contentions will be foreclosed in a later § 2255 collateral 

attack. See, ~, United States v. Khan, 835 F.2d 749 (10th 

Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1222 (1988). 

The court denied the right to proceed in forma pauperis .on 

appeal, and the case is before us upon Davis' motion for leave to 

appeal in forma pauperis. After reviewing the record we agree 

with the district court. We deny Davis' motion for leave to 

proceed without prepayment of costs or fees, and we dismiss the 

appeal, because there is no rational argument on the law and facts 

which can support a viable claim on the issues raised in the 

appeal in its present posture. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 

U.S. 438 (1962). 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6001 Document: 010110051353 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 2