Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08006/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08006-0/pdf.json

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

---

• 

Uofred }1s 1 L E 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS tatej Wlll't of A 

Tenth Circuit PJ'Cals 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

COURTNEY JAMES VAN RIPER, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JAN 2 J L 

ROBERT L.1-IOEcv-,;.. 

Clerk iu:,R. 

No. 89-8006 

(D.C. No. C88-0112) 

(D. Wyo.) 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and SPARR,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Daniel 

District Court for 

designation. 

B. Sparr, District Judge, 

the District of Colorado, 

United States 

sitting by 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Defendant appeals from the district court's denial of his 

motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to vacate the district 

* 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: 89-8006 Document: 010110083532 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 1 
court's determination of defendant's 28 u.s.c. § 2255 motion. In 

1987, defendant pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to 

interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 2312, and to uttering a forged United States Treasury 

check, in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 510(a)(2). The district court 

sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment and ordered 

defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $4,636.15 after his 

release from prison. 

In 1988, defendant filed a motion pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 

§ 2255, asserting two claims: 1) the government was violating the 

plea agreement by attempting to collect the restitution from 

defendant while he remained incarcerated; and 2) the sentencing 

court failed to consider defendant's financial condition before 

imposing restitution, contrary to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 3579-80 (renumbered, in 1987, to 18 u.s.c. §§ 663-64). As 

relief, defendant requested the district court either order 

specific performance of the plea agreement or vacate the 

restitution order. 

The district court ordered specific performance of the plea 

agreement on July 5, 1988. On September 15, defendant filed a 

Rule 60(b) motion, requesting that the district court vacate its 

order of specific performance of the plea agreement, as that 

relief was not adequate, and enter an order vacating the district 

court's earlier order imposing restitution. The district court 

denied defendant's Rule 60(b) motion, determining that because 

defendant had been released from prison, his claims were moot. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-8006 Document: 010110083532 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 2 
Defendant timely appeals from the denial of the Rule 60(b) 

motion. The decision to grant or deny a Rule 60(b) motion is left 

to the sound discretion of the district court and will not be 

overturned absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Browder v. 

Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978). 

The district court correctly determined that, because 

defendant had been released from prison, his claim for an order 

enforcing the plea agreement's provision that restitution be made 

after defendant's release from prison is moot. See Lane v. 

Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 630-31 (1982); Johnson v. Riveland, 855 

F.2d 1477, 1479, 1480 (10th Cir. 1988). Because defendant is 

still subject to the restitution order, however, defendant's claim 

alleging the unlawful imposition of restitution is not moot. See 

Lane, 455 U.S. at 630. Nevertheless, because defendant was not 

entitled to relief under this claim, the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. See Griess 

v. Colorado, 841 F.2d 1042, 1047 (10th Cir. 1988)(appellate court 

may affirm upon grounds which were supported by the record, but 

upon which the district court did not rely). 

Defendant did not allege that the imposition of restitution 

violated constitutional principles, nor did he allege that the 

sentencing court lacked jurisdiction to impose restitution. See 

United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979). Rather, 

defendant asserted that the sentencing court failed to consider 

his financial condition prior to imposing restitution, contrary to 

the requirements of 18 u.s.c. § 3580(a). 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-8006 Document: 010110083532 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 3 
• 

Not all errors will be grounds for relief under section 2255. 

Addonizio, 442 U.S. at 185. Rather, only errors of law which 

constitute "'a fundamental defect which inherently results in a 

complete miscarriage of justice'" will support section 2255 

relief. See id. (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 

(1962)). 

Although defendant asserted that the sentencing court did not 

consider his financial condition, he failed to allege that he 

presented evidence at the sentencing proceeding concerning his 

financial condition. See United States v. Trettenaro, 601 

F. Supp. 183, 186 (D. Colo. 1985)("when no financial evidence is 

introduced by the defendant, the defendant's ability to pay does 

not become a consideration in the Court's determination of the 

amount of restitution to order"). Defendant has, therefore, 

failed to assert a "fundamental defect" resulting in "a complete 

miscarriage of justice" which would entitle him to collateral 

relief under section 2255. See Hill, 368 U.S. at 428-29. 

Defendant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 

The order of the United States District Court for the District of 

Wyoming denying defendant's Rule 60(b) motion is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-8006 Document: 010110083532 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 4