Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06228/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06228-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT .FILED 

ALFRED DELMA HILL, also known as 

Delma Alfred Hill, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

United Staie.?. Ce; !n oi APr>ertls 

'J',-,,t.h ~,r<'nit 

FEB 1 31991 

~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6228 

(D.C. No. CR-88-81-A) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a 

decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Petitioner Delma Alfred Hill appeals his sentence following 

his plea of guilty to distribution of two ounces of heroin, in 

violation of 21 u.s.c. § 84l(a)(l). Petitioner was sentenced 

under the Sentencing Guidelines to eighty-four months 

imprisonment. He filed a motion with the district court pursuant 

* 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: 90-6228 Document: 010110099949 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 1 
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, attacking the validity of his sentence on a 

number of grounds, including the constitutionality of the 

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. 

On March 31, 1989, the district court addressed petitioner's 

arguments and denied him relief. Thereafter, petitioner filed two 

documents: one in the district court entitled "Objection to 

Recommendation of U.S. Attorney" on April 10, 1989, and the second 

a notice of appeal on November 6, 1989. On August 14, 1990, the 

district court denied a motion by petitioner for a ruling on his 

April 10, 1989 filing because it was not invited or authorized and 

because his objections lacked merit. In his appeal before this 

court, petitioner contends that (1) the district court improperly 

considered additional quantities of drugs for which he was not 

charged in calculating his base offense level, and (2) the 

Sentencing Commission did not have authority under the Sentencing 

Reform Act to promulgate the "relevant conduct" section,§ 1B1.3. 

Before treating petitioner's legal arguments, we must 

consider the jurisdictional problems this case presents. 

Following entry of the district court's March 31, 1989 ruling, 

petitioner had basically two avenues for review. First, he could 

have filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to alter or amend 

the district court's order. See Skagerberg v. Oklahoma, 797 F.2d 

881, 883 (10th Cir. 1986). In the alternative, he could have 

appealed directly to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

within the time limits of Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). Petitioner did 

neither successfully in this case. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6228 Document: 010110099949 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 2 
Petitioner's filing of a document entitled "Objection to 

Recommendation of U.S. Attorney" appears to have been a reply to 

the government's response to his§ 2255 motion; not a Rule 59(e) 

motion to alter or amend the district court's sentencing judgment. 

But, even if we were to liberally construe this document as a 

valid Rule 59(e) motion, we would still not have jurisdiction to 

hear the appeal. Although petitioner satisfied the ten-day filing 

requirement, he failed to wait until the district court ruled on 

his Rule 59(e) motion before filing an appeal with this court. 

The district court effectively denied petitioner's motion on 

August 14, 1990, more than nine months after petitioner filed a 

notice of appeal. Therefore, under the express wording of Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(4), petitioner's notice of appeal is of no effect: 

"A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of any of the 

above motions shall have no effect. A new notice of appeal must 

be filed within the prescribed time measured from the entry of the 

order disposing of the motion as provided above." Because 

petitioner failed to file a new notice of appeal within the time 

specified by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a), he is now barred from bringing 

this appeal. 

Moreover, were we to reach the merits of this case, 

petitioner could not prevail. A sentencing court may consider 

other quantities of drugs in determining a defendant's base 

offense level, United States v. Ware, 897 F.2d 1538, 1542-43 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 110 s. Ct. 2629 (1990), and the Sentencing 

Commission was within its authority to promulgate§ lBl.3 of the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6228 Document: 010110099949 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 3 
Guidelines. See United States v. Ebbole, 917 F.2d 1495, 1501 (7th 

Cir. 1990). 

AFFIRMED. Petitioner's motion for bail pending appeal is 

denied as moot. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6228 Document: 010110099949 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 4