Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06217/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06217-0/pdf.json

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

---

I 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

RONALD LESLIE FORD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEALS 

FILED 

U •.....a ~ C-Ourt of App®,ls n1wu c· ·t enth 1rcw 

SEP O G 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6217 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-246-T) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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. 

Ronald Lesley Ford here appeals the denial of his Motion to 

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2255. On September 8, 1987, Mr. Ford pled guilty to one count of 

conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6217 Document: 010110089329 Date Filed: 09/06/1991 Page: 1 
J 

U.S.C. § 846, and one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 u.s.c. § 841 (a)(l). 

He was sentenced to seven years incarceration. 

Mr. Ford now claims that the sentence imposed violated the 

terms of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32, and that he was therefore sentenced 

in violation of his Due Process rights. Mr. Ford argues that his 

presentence report contains inaccuracies which should have been 

expunged. Mr. Ford also contends that he received ineffective 

assistance of counsel. The district court rejected both arguments 

in a thorough opinion. The district court noted that the sentencing court expressly did not rely on any of the information claimed 

to be inaccurate. The district court ordered, however, that a 

copy of its order and of the sentencing transcript be appended to 

Mr. Ford's PSI report. The district court declined to address 

questions regarding the Parole Commission's use of the allegedly 

inaccurate PSI report because it was without jurisdiction to do 

so. 

On review, we must determine whether the movant's allegations, if proved, would entitle him to relief. If so, we then 

decide whether the district court's denial of an evidentiary hearing was an abuse of discretion. United States v. Barboa, 777 F.2d 

1420, 1422 (10th Cir. 1985). We review the district court's findings as to ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. United 

States v. Owens, 882 F.2d 1493, 1501-02, n.16 (10th Cir. 1989). 

After thoroughly reviewing the pleadings and the record, we 

hold that the district court order is supported by the record. We 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 90-6217 Document: 010110089329 Date Filed: 09/06/1991 Page: 2 
J . . 

AFFIRM the district court order for substantially the reasons set 

out therein. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

- 3 -

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6217 Document: 010110089329 Date Filed: 09/06/1991 Page: 3