Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03149/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03149-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Howard Newman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

... '.' 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF .APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

WILLIAM HOWARD NEWMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AUG 8 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-3149 

(D. Kansas) 

(D.C. No. 87-30008-01) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. 

William Howard Newman appeals from an order of the district 

court denying Newman's motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 

28 u.s.c. § 2255. Newman contends that his sentence should be 

vacated because he was not sentenced under the Sentencing 

Guidelines of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, and he claims he 

should have been. 

* 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: 91-3149 Document: 010110131463 Date Filed: 08/08/1991 Page: 1 
The district court set forth the following salient facts in 

its order. Newman was indicted on February 19, 1987. He was 

charged with escaping from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons on 

or about October 30, 1986. Newman was convicted of this charge on 

November 2, _ 1987, and . sentenc.ed _on December 18 ,_ .1987. He was 

sentenced under pre-Guidelines law. 

Newman argues that the Sentencing Guidelines went into effect 

on November 1, 1986, rather than November 1, 1987, citing three 

cases for that proposition. He also argues that in any event he 

was convicted and sentenced after November 1, 1987. Finally, he 

argues that to the extent an ambiguity exists, the rule of lenity 

should be applied in his favor. 

It is settled that the Sentencing Guidelines became effective 

on November 1, 1987, and that they apply only to offenses 

committed after November 1, 1987. See United States v. Williams, 

897 F.2d 1034 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 s.ct. 2064 

(1991). The United States Sentencing Commission has expressly 

incorporated that point in the Guidelines Manual, Chap. 1, Part A, 

par.2: "[T]he Guidelines took effect on November 1, 1987, and 

apply to all offenses committed on or after that date." 

Accordingly, the order of the district court dismissing 

Newman's motion to vacate his sentence is AFFIRMED. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3149 Document: 010110131463 Date Filed: 08/08/1991 Page: 2