Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01267/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01267-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albert Leonard Rutherford
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Stat~ Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

APR 2 6 1991 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ALBERT LEONARD RUTHERFORD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-1267 

(D.C. No. 88-CR-39) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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. 

Albert Leonard Rutherford, whose conviction under 18 u.s.c. 

S 1203 for taking a hostage to compel another person or the United 

States government to do something in exchange for the hostage's 

release was affirmed by this court, see United States v. 

Rutherford, No. 88-2138 (10th Cir. July 14, 1989) (unpublished 

* 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: 90-1267 Document: 010110105196 Date Filed: 04/26/1991 Page: 1 
order and judgment), has filed a motion to dismiss his indictment. 

We treat this as a petition for relief under 28 u.s.c. S 2255. 

Rutherford argues that the indictment failed to allege a violation 

of the statute because, while he might have been guilty of assault, he was not guilty of taking the alleged victim as a 

hostage, as required by the statute. He also argues that applying 

18 u.s.c. S 1203 to the facts of this case is an unconstitutional 

incursion upon the rights of the state of Colorado to punish offenses committed in that state. The district court denied relief. 

We agree with the government that at this stage, after 

Rutherford's conviction has been affirmed, the sufficiency of the 

indictment is not subject to collateral attack. See Charley v. 

United States, 303 F.2d 512, 513 (10th Cir. 1962). Further, even 

if the indictment were subject to attack this court necessarily 

resolved the issue against Rutherford when it found the evidence 

sufficient to support the conviction and affirmed his conviction 

on direct appeal. 

We regard Rutherford's argument that the hostage taking 

statute, 18 u.s.c. S 1203, is somehow a violation of states' 

rights and the Tenth Amendment as entirely frivolous. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1267 Document: 010110105196 Date Filed: 04/26/1991 Page: 2