Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02086/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02086-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Davis Burton Kaamasee
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

• FIL.ED 

United Stat~ Coun of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Grcuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

DAVIS BURTON KAAMASEE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MAR 2 5 1g91 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2086 

(D.C. No. Cr. 89-441-SC-01) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and SPARR, District 

Judge.** 

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. 

Defendant Davis Burton Kaamasee argues that the district 

court erred when it refused to disclose information provided to it 

by a United States probation officer during defendant's sentencing 

* 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. 

** The Honorable Daniel B. Sparr, United States District Judge 

for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-2086 Document: 010110031299 Date Filed: 03/25/1991 Page: 1 
hearing. We conclude that the district court's actions do not 

warrant reversal. 

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of sexually abusing a 

minor within the boundaries of an Indian reservation in violation 

of 18 u.s.c. SS 1153(a) and 2244(a). At defendant's sentencing 

hearing, "after calling the case for sentencing, but before 

imposing sentence, the trial court conferred off the record, at 

the bench, with a U.S. Probation officer." IR. tab 37, exh. B. 

The court then resumed the hearing, and, after listening to 

defendant's sentencing statement, sentenced defendant to the top 

of the applicable guideline sentencing range--twelve months 

imprisonment. 

After defendant's sentence was pronounced, the defendant's 

attorney (Ms. Teresa Storch) and the district court judge engaged 

in the following colloquy: 

MS. STORCH: 

THE COURT: 

MS. STORCH: 

THE COURT: 

MS. STORCH: 

THE COURT: 

Your Honor, yes, and I don't mean to be 

rude but I would like to inquire whether 

[the probation officer] had shared any 

additional information to the Court prior 

to the Court's imposing sentence? 

I do not have to, and will not respond to 

that question. 

And, your Honor, I don't know if the 

Court is aware but I --

And I think the question is impertinent. 

Your Honor, I did not mean to 

impertinent, but I think my client 

right to know the information the 

has. 

be 

has a 

Court 

Ms. Storch, I'm going to advise you that 

I consult with probation officers 

constantly on many aspects of many cases, 

and it is not my policy, nor do I intend 

to sit down and inform counsel as to what 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2086 Document: 010110031299 Date Filed: 03/25/1991 Page: 2 
III R. 10. 

goes on between this Court and its 

probation officers. 

Pointing to the district court's refusal to discuss its 

conversation with the probation officer, defendant now argues that 

due process, 18 u.s.c. S 3552, Fed. R. Crim. P. 32, and S 6A of 

the United States Sentencing Guidelines mandate resentencing. 

The Ninth Circuit faced a similar challenge to a defendant's 

sentence in United States v. Gonzales, 765 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 

1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1068 (1986). The defendant 

(Gonzales) there argued that due process entitled him to an 

evidentiary hearing regarding oral ex parte contacts between the 

district court and a probation officer. Id. at 1398. Although it 

concluded that Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3) would be violated "if the 

probation officer related facts orally to the district court, on 

which it relied and which were not disclosed," see id., the 

Gonzales court nevertheless affirmed Gonzales' sentence: 

Gonzales is asserting that because the sentencing judge, 

the probation officer, and the sentencing council 

discussed his case and the end result of these 

discussions was disagreeable from his perspective, 

something improper must have occurred. This is pure 

speculation. Gonzales has come forward with no evidence 

other than the challenged result to suggest that 

improper facts were considered •.•• 

Gonzales attacks the ex parte communication only 

because he disagrees with his lawful sentence. The 

district court's assessment of Gonzales' record is 

within its sound judgment, and since Gonzales failed to 

come forward with more than hypothetical improprieties, 

the district judge did not abuse his discretion in 

refusing to order an evidentiary hearing. 

Id. at 1398-99 (citation omitted). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2086 Document: 010110031299 Date Filed: 03/25/1991 Page: 3 
Like the Gonzales court, we refuse to assume that an 

experienced district judge received and relied on improper 

information in imposing sentence. The instant defendant offers no 

evidence that the probation officer gave the judge any improper 

information or that the judge relied on any such information in 

imposing sentence. The sentence imposed is within the appropriate 

guideline range based on the information contained in the 

presentence investigation report. Moreover, the reasons offered 

by the district court for the sentence imposed all clearly are 

based on information from the presentence report. 1 We therefore 

deny defendant's request for resentencing. 

Although we affirm defendant's sentence, we cannot help but 

observe that this appeal easily could have been prevented 

altogether. We understand and are sympathetic with the plight of 

overburdened trial judges. After reviewing the record, however, 

we are convinced that this appeal is the result of the district 

court's refusal to answer defense counsel's legitimate question 

about whether the court's conversation with the probation officer 

involved added facts relating to the sentencing of her client. 

Faced with a similar situation in the future, we urge the district 

court simply to assure defense counsel that it did not receive any 

1 The district court explained its decision to sentence defendant 

to twelve months in prison as follows: "[T]he Court finds that 

the adjusted offense level is 10 and the criminal history category 

of [sic] I, which results in a guideline range of 6 to 12 months. 

The Court in imposing sentence takes judicial notice that the 

defendant's action consisted of criminal sexual contact with a 12 

year old child. The sentence imposed will reflect the sentencing 

goals of punishment and general deterrence." IR. tab 27. The 

presentence report confirms that defendant's victim was twelve 

years old. See II R. 3 at 11 8, 11. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-2086 Document: 010110031299 Date Filed: 03/25/1991 Page: 4 
information not included in the presentence report, or, if it did, 

either reveal the information or give assurances that the court 

did not rely on such information in imposing sentence. See, .!ii!...:.S.:., 

Gonzales, 765 F.2d at 1396 (When defendant challenged court's ex 

parte communication with probation officer, "The court stressed 

that the probation officer disclosed no facts during ex parte 

discussions that were not in the presentence report " ) . • I 

United States v. Houston, 745 F.2d 333, 334 (5th Cir. 1984) (When 

defendant challenged sentencing judge's conversation with 

probation officer out of defendant's presence, the judge "stated 

that he received no confidential information from the probation 

officer ..•• "),cert.denied, 470 U.S. 1008 (1985). 

AFFIRMED. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2086 Document: 010110031299 Date Filed: 03/25/1991 Page: 5