Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01153/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01153-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ciraiit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

NOV 13 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FUAD SAM JEZZENY, ) 

) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant.) 

No. 90-1153 

(D. CO. No. 87-CR-112) 

(D. CO. No. 88-CR-274) 

(C. CO. No. 90-C-533) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from the district court's denial of 

prisoner's motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255. The defendant claims 

that the denial was deficient because it contained no findings of 

fact or conclusions of law. Section 2255 states that "[u]nless 

the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show 

that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall ... 

grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make 

* 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: 90-1153 Document: 010110047911 Date Filed: 11/13/1990 Page: 1 
, 

findings of fact and conclusions of law .... " If findings of fact 

and conclusions of law had been made, we would review the former 

on a clearly erroneous standard and the latter on a de novo 

standard. In this case, however, neither conclusions or findings 

were made. Therefore, we view as a legal question whether there 

was a need to make conclusions of law and findings of fact. In 

other words, we must examine the record and decide if "this 

case ... conclusively show[s] that defendant is entitled to no 

relief." United States v. Gutierrez, 839 F.2d 648, 653 (10th Cir. 

1988). 

We agree with the prisoner that he is owed these findings of 

fact and conclusions of law because we do not believe that any of 

his first three grounds for relief are so obviously without merit 

as to fall within the exception in §2255. 1 Therefore, we vacate 

and remand to the district court for findings of fact and 

conclusions of law on the first three grounds listed in the 

prisoner's Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255. See Tr. of Record 

on App. Vol I. at 6-7. 

In addition, as a fourth ground in his §2255 motion, the 

prisoner complained that he was sentenced illegally on his Failure 

to Appear conviction. We agree. The district judge specifically 

1 Ground one was "Violation of due process under the Fifth 

Amendment, due to violations of Rule 32(c)(3)(d) F.R.Cr.P. by use 

and disclosure of inaccurate information in the Presentence 

Report." Ground two was "Defendant was denied a meaningful 

opportunity for allocution at sentencing pursuant to Rule 

32(a)(a), F.R.Cr.P." Ground three was "Judicial abuse of 

discretion/Mechanical Sentencing." Although the government 

sharply disputed the factual allegations contained in the 

petitioner's §2255 motion, we cannot resolve those disputes until 

the district court has addressed them. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1153 Document: 010110047911 Date Filed: 11/13/1990 Page: 2 
., 

found that the defendant's failure to appear "occurred after 

November 1, 1987, [and therefore] the Sentencing Reform Act, 18 

U.S. Code, Section 3351, would be applicable in this case." 

However, the district court was under the belief that the 

sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional, and so "the Court 

impose[d] a sentence under preexisting law." See Tr. of Record on 

App. Vol. I Supp. at 22. 

In petitioner's brief in support of the §2255 motion, and in 

the government's response, the district court was pointed to the 

Supreme Court's decision of United States v. Mistretta, 109 S.Ct. 

647 (1989). See Brief in Support of Defendant Jezzeny's Motion to 

Set Aside, Vacate, or Correct Sentence at 15; Government's 

Response to Defendant's Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 at 5. 

Both sides argued to the district court that the Mistretta 

decision, which found the sentencing guidelines constitutional, 

mandated that the district court resentence the prisoner on his 

Failure to Appear conviction in Case No. 88-CR-274. Id. We agree 

that it does. However, the district court inexplicably refused to 

do so. Therefore, on the prisoner's fourth ground for relief in 

his §2255 motion, we VACATE his sentence on the Failure to Appear 

conviction and we REMAND for resentencing under the sentencing 

guidelines. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1153 Document: 010110047911 Date Filed: 11/13/1990 Page: 3