Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07043/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07043-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Oliver Cameron
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.• . FILED 

Ufltted Scatcs Coucc of Appeah 

Tenth Cirruir 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

A/JG .. 3 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES OLIVER CAMERON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

No. 89-7043 

(D.C. No. 82-23-CR) 

( E. D. Okla. ) 

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. 

James Oliver Cameron appeals the district court's denial of 

his Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion for correction of an illegal 

sentence due to a defective indictment. The district court 

summarily denied the motion on April 11, 1989. Cameron filed an 

appeal on April 24, 1989. The district court then granted 

permission to appeal in forma pauperis on April 24, 1989. 

* 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: 89-7043 Document: 010110039603 Date Filed: 08/03/1990 Page: 1 
The government contends that we lack jurisdiction because 

Cameron's notice of appeal was untimely. We disagree. We 

construe the district court's order granting permission to appeal 

in forma pauperis as granting an extension of time in which to 

appeal pursuant to Fed R. App. P. 4(a)(4). The appeal is timely. 

Reaching the merits, we hold that Cameron is not entitled to 

relief from a defective indictment under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. In 

United States Y.:.. Willis, 804 F.2d 961 (6th Cir. 1986), the Sixth 

Circuit held that "[a] Rule 35 motion presupposes a valid 

conviction and is an inappropriate vehicle for collaterally 

attacking the underlying proceeding." Id. at 964 (citing Gilinsky 

Y.:.. United States, 335 F.2d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 1964); Hill Y.:.. 

United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430 (1962) ("the narrow function of 

Rule 35 is to permit correction at any time of an illegal 

sentence, not to re-examine errors occuring at trial or other 

proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence." (emphasis in 

original)); see also United States Y.:.. Hamilton, 553 F.2d 63, 65 

(10th Cir.) ("A motion to correct a sentence does not attack the 

validity of the underlying conviction."), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 

843 (1977). We agree with this reading of Rule 35. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

2 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-7043 Document: 010110039603 Date Filed: 08/03/1990 Page: 2