Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05062/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05062-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Lathan E. Willeford
Appellant

Document Text:

. 

I 

• 

FI LED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1'Pntr Cim1it 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

LATHAN E. WILLEFORD, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JUL 11 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-5062 

(D.C. No. 85-CR-149-C) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, 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. 

submi tted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Defendant appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S . C. § 2255 

motion challenging a 1986 conviction and sentence on charges of 

conspiracy to manufacture amphetamine and interstate travel in aid 

of r acketeering. 

* 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: 89-5062 Document: 010110038272 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 1 
Defendant raised five grounds in his motion below: 

(1) Improper sentencing based on false information included 

in presentence report and U.S. Attorney's statement to the 

court; 

(2) Admission of hearsay evidence and improper instruction 

to jury on its use; 

(3) Insufficient evidence to support conviction; 

(4) Illegal search and seizure based on involuntary 

expression of consent; and 

(5) Ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and 

sentencing 

The record reveals no action taken or required by the district 

court from the filing of defendant's motion on January 27, 1989, 

until its denial, by minute order, on April 10, 1989. 

On appeal, the government advances a number of arguments in 

order to provide a rationale for the district court's unexplained 

disposition of the instant motion. We express no opinion on the 

merits of the particular contentions raised and engaged by the 

parties' appellate briefs, but simply note that at least some of 

the matters asserted in defendant's motion warrant more explicit 

consideration than the peremptory rejection they received below. 

See United States v. Marr, 856 F.2d 1471, 1472-73 (10th Cir. 

1988); see also Hart v. United States, 565 F.2d 360, 362 (5th Cir. 

1978). We emphasize, however, that this requirement of a reasoned 

decision does not necessitate an evidentiary hearing where the 

record conclusively shows the defendant is entitled to no relief. 

Marr, 856 F.2d at 1472, 1473; Hart, 565 F.2d at 362. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-5062 Document: 010110038272 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 2 
t 

The order of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma denying defendant's§ 2255 motion is 

VACATED and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings. 

Defendant's motion to order transcript is DENIED as moot. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-5062 Document: 010110038272 Date Filed: 07/11/1990 Page: 3