Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01305/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01305-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benjamin Servin-Valdez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

., 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

Uoiced States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

SEP 7- 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 88-1305 

BENJAMIN SERVIN-VALDEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. CR-87-420-2) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, TACHA, 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. Therefore, the cause is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is a direct appeal from defendant Servin-Valdez' 

conviction for various narcotics-related crimes. Defendant makes 

one contention on appeal: that the district court's denial of 

defendant's motion for severance resulted in prejudice to 

defendant and constituted reversible error. 

* 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: 88-1305 Document: 01019973437 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 1 
The issue of severance is committed to the district court's 

discretion, and defendant points to no specific prejudice in this 

case that would not be true in any case against alleged 

coconspirators. See United States v. Calabrese, 645 F.2d 1379, 

1385 (10th Cir. 1981) (''To establish abuse of discretion more is 

required than that separate trials might have offered a better 

chance for acquittal of one or more of the accused."). Consequently, we find no error. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

- 2 -

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1305 Document: 01019973437 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 2