Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06121/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06121-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Fl LE 0 

UoiteJ SrnHl§ Come c,f Appeal$ 

•tenth Cir~h 

SEP 19 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 90-6121 

KERMIT W. LOTTIE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) (D.C. No. CIV-90-076-P) 

) (W. D. 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 case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Kermit w. Lottie, imprisoned on drug-related charges, appeals 

the district court's denial of his motion for reduction of 

sentence pursuant to 28 u.s.c. section 2255. Lottie contends that 

the government violated his plea agreement by introducing hearsay 

evidence at sentencing, which resulted in the district court 

departing from the Guidelines and sentencing Lottie to a term of 

33 months imprisonment rather than the presumptive 21 to 27 

* 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: 90-6121 Document: 010110042227 Date Filed: 09/19/1990 Page: 1 
months. Despite this increase over his expected sentence, Lottie 

elected not to appeal. The district court ruled that Lottie is 

barred from challenging his sentence due to his failure to take a 

direct appeal. We affirm. 

It is a well established principle of our jurisprudence that 

a "collateral challenge may not do service for an appeal." United 

States~ Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 165 (1982) (collecting cases). 

Lottie may not challenge the legality of matters which should have 

been raised on appeal. See United States~ Khan, 835 F.2d 749, 

753 (10th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1222 (1988). We have 

held in the related context of 28 u.s.c. section 2254, that the 

deliberate bypass test of Fay~ Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963), 

governs when the movant/petitioner took no direct appeal. See 

Worthen~ Meachum, 842 F.2d 1179, 1181 (10th Cir. 1988). Some 

courts, however, have considered both the "deliberate bypass" 

standard of Fay~ Noia and the "cause and prejudice" standard of 

Frady, 456 U.S. at 167-70, in determining whether a movant is 

entitled to relief. See United States~ McKnight, 693 F.2d 476, 

477 (5th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (finding of deliberate bypass 

requires movant to show "cause and prejudice"). We need not 

determine which standard governs because neither approach entitles 

Lottie to relief. 

We find that Lottie has deliberately bypassed his opportunity 

to take an appeal. Lottie was represented by counsel at trial and 

was personally informed by the district judge at sentencing of his 

right to appeal. Lottie has supplied no explanation that would 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6121 Document: 010110042227 Date Filed: 09/19/1990 Page: 2 
rebut the inference that he deliberately bypassed a direct appeal. 

See Worthen, 846 F.2d at 1181. 

Even if the cause and prejudice standard applies, Lottie has 

not stated any "cause" for his failure to appeal. Indeed, Lottie 

has not addressed this issue at all. Nothing in the record 

explains or justifies Lotties failure to appeal. See Khan, 835 

F.2d at 754. 

Section 2255 is not a substitute for appeal. We decline to 

review a conviction where deliberate bypass is shown and no "cause 

and prejudice" is alleged. The district court did not err in 

denying the motion to reduce sentence. AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6121 Document: 010110042227 Date Filed: 09/19/1990 Page: 3