Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03166/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03166-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Brett Allen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.. 

Fl LED 

Unilm States Co:irtq{ Ap~c:i.m Tenth C1rcu1 .. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP O 9 1991 

OBERT L. HOECKER TENTH CIRCUIT 

-------------· Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JOHN BRETT ALLEN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

. -) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-3166 

(D.C. No. 91-3089-R) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

John Brett Allen, a prose federal prisoner, brought an 

action under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) to vacate his plea of guilty 

to an escape charge. Allen in essence alleged that his plea was 

not knowing and voluntary due to misrepresentations made to him 

*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: 91-3166 Document: 010110089433 Date Filed: 09/09/1991 Page: 1 
about the consequences of the plea. It appears that Allen was 

under the impression when he pled that his parole date would be 

calculated on the basis of the applicable parole guidelines and 

good time earned. However, the Parole Commission found him to be 

a poorer parole risk than shown by his salient factor score and 

set his parole date above the guideline range. 

The district court construed Allen's motion as one in the 

nature of an attack on the execution of his sentence. The court 

held that his action was properly cognizable as one under section 

2241 rather than section 2255. Because a claim under section 2241 

must be filed in the district of incarceration, in this case 

Colorado, the court concluded it had no jurisdiction over that 

aspect of Allen's claim. The court concluded alternatively that, 

to the extent Allen's action was based on the asserted 

misrepresentations, his allegations were insufficient. The court 

therefore dismissed that portion of Allen's claim over which it 

believed it had jurisdiction. 

We are not convinced that the district court was correct in 

viewing Allen's action as one attacking the execution of his 

sentence. Allen is not requesting relief directed to the Parole 

Board, nor has he requested a parole date set within the guideline 

range. Instead he seeks to have his plea vacated on the ground 

that he was misled as to its consequences. This claim, which 

alleges errors occurring at or before sentencing, is properly 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3166 Document: 010110089433 Date Filed: 09/09/1991 Page: 2 
brought under section 2255 in the sentencing court. See United 

States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir. 1980). 

Nonetheless, we agree with the district court that Allen's 

allegation with respect- to the asserted misrepresentations are 

insufficient. He has not alleged who made the representations or 

even specifically described them. A bare allegation such as this 

one is "not sufficient to require a hearing on the validity of a 

guilty plea allegedly induced by an unkept promise." Id. Allen's 

subjective expectations or a misunderstanding of his legal 

position, without more, do not call into doubt the validity of his 

plea. See id.; see also United States v. Maranzino, 860 F.2d 981, 

985 (10th Cir. 1988). 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3166 Document: 010110089433 Date Filed: 09/09/1991 Page: 3