Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06311/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06311-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alan Irving Raz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Fl LE b 

U.oiu:d SHmt.5 t oon of /\pfie.i.is 

Tenth C!rcei: 

JAN 19 1s;n 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs. No. 89-6311 

ALAN IRVING RAZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-1516-A) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.** 

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant-appellant (now§ 2255 

petitioner) was convicted of conspiracy to distribute 

methamphetamine. He was sentenced to prison for seven years. 

Petitioner filed a direct appeal, which recently resulted· in his 

conviction being affirmed. United States v. Raz, No. 88-2891 slip 

op. at 3 (10th Cir., filed Dec. 12, 1989). Although the mandate 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res 

judicata or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously the oral argument would not assist 

materially the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 89-6311 Document: 01019960762 Date Filed: 01/19/1990 Page: 1 
has issued in the direct appeal, a motion remains pending for 

leave to file a petition for rehearing out of time. 

While the direct appeal was pending, petitioner filed this 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion to have his sentence vacated, a practice 

which is not favored. United States v. Davis, 604 F.2d 474, 484 

(7th Cir. 1979); Jones v. United States, 453 F.2d 351, 352 (5th 

Cir. 1972) (per curiam). The district court summarily dismissed 

the§ 2255 action because the direct appeal had not been resolved. 

Our jurisdiction to consider this dismissal arises under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2253 & 2255. 

Although a direct appeal was pending, the district court had 

jurisdiction to decide the§ 2255 motion. DeRango v. United 

States, 864 F.2d 520, 522 (7th Cir. 1988). However, "the orderly 

administration of criminal law precludes considering such a motion 

absent extraordinary circumstances." Womack v. United States, 395 

F.2d 630, 631 (D.C. Cir. 1968). Accord United States v. Gordon, 

634 F.2d 638 (1st Cir. 1980); Davis, 604 F.2d at 484. There are 

several reasons for this general rule which precludes 

consideration of a§ 2255 motion while a direct appeal is pending, 

absent extraordinary circumstances. The most obvious is that 

resolution of the direct appeal probably will affect, if not 

render unnecessary, the§ 2255 motion. Gordon, 634 F.2d at 639; 

Womack, 395 F.2d at 631. Another reason is that§ 2255 is an 

extraordinary remedy which should not displace a direct appeal. 

Id. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6311 Document: 01019960762 Date Filed: 01/19/1990 Page: 2 
i 

Although petitioner's direct appeal affirmed his judgment of 

conviction and sentence, that resolution affects, at least in 

part, the arguments contained in his§ 2255 motion. We prefer 

that the district court pass on the merits of such a motion in a 

reasoned decision prior to our review. United States v. Marr, 856 

F.2d 1471, 1472-73 (10th Cir. 1988). Thus, we express no opinion 

concerning the merits and affirm the district court's dismissal of 

this action because we are unaware of any extraordinary 

circumstances which favor appellate resolution at this stage. 

Petitioner may renew his§ 2255 motion in the district court upon 

the completion of his direct appeal, if necessary. Davis, 604 

F.2d at 485. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6311 Document: 01019960762 Date Filed: 01/19/1990 Page: 3