Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01337/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01337-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank Costelon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED · is 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAIJ;!nitcd States Co~rt ~£ Ap~ Tenth C1rn11t 

TERTII CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

FRANK COSTELON, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

/lPR 1 7 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-1337 

(D.C. No. 88-CR-69) 

(D. Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACIIA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the .. briefs. and _ the __ _ appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in 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. 

Mr. Castelan appeals pro se the denial of his motion 

requesting the discharge of a fine. 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1337 Document: 010110034228 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 1 
I 

.. 

Mr. Castelan pleaded guilty to possession of heroin with 

intent to distribute and was sentenced, under the sentencing 

guidelines, to eight and one-half years imprisonment; supervised 

release for three years; and was fined $15,000. At the time of 

sentencing, the district court, in relation to the fine said as 

follows: 

[i]t is the order of Court that a fine of $15,000 be 

assessed against the Defendant to be paid in intervals 

as prescribed by the Bureau of Prisons in concert with 

the Probation Office at such intervals as may be 

warranted upon his release from confinement. 

Further, that while incarcerated, the defendant 

shall not receive any furloughs until efforts have been 

made to make reasonable payments to the fine hereby 

assessed .... 

Mr. Castelan filed a direct criminal appeal on August 11, 

1988, and while his appeal was pending before this court Mr. 

Castelan encountered troubles with the Bureau of Prisons because 

the Bureau wanted him to commence making payments toward his fine. 

Mr. Castelan then requested a work pass furlough or community 

release in order to satisfy his court-imposed fine. The Bureau of 

Prisons denied this request as the programs were unavailable where 

Mr. Castelan was confined. Mr. Castelan then requested a transfer 

to another prison and this request was denied. The Bureau of 

Prisons did, however, offer Mr. Castelan employment in the 

institution where he was incarcerated. This employment 

opportunity included Federal Prison Industries where he could make 

three or four times the normal prison wage. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1337 Document: 010110034228 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 2 
• 

At one point, Mr. Costelon's attorney wrote the district 

court stating that Mr. Castelan was of the opinion that his fine 

was not to be paid until his release from confinement and noted 

that the Bureau of Prisons read the district court's order as 

requiring immediate payments toward the fine. On August 9, 1990, 

Mr. Castelan filed the prose motion, which is the subject of this 

appeal, wherein he requested the district court discharge the 

unpaid balance of $14,900 of his fine. The Government responded 

alleging the district court was without jurisdiction as Mr. 

Costelon's direct appeal was still pending. 

The district court, on October 12, 1990, denied Mr. 

Costelon's motion in an order entitled "ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION REQUESTING DISCHARGE OF FINE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18 U.S.C. 

S 3569 DISCHARGE OF INDIGENT PRISONER," determining from the 

original transcript that Mr. Castelan had the ability to 

participate in employment opportunities while confined. Also, by 

way of clarification, the district court ordered Mr. Castelan to 

commence payment of the fine based on income he earns through the 

employment opportunities provided by the Bureau of Prisons. 

On October 29, 1990, this court entered its Order and 

Judgment affirming Mr. Costelon's conviction and sentence. 

Mr. Castelan now appeals the October 12, 1990 district court 

order. He asserts: (1) that he was not in the courtroom when his 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1337 Document: 010110034228 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 3 
motion for discharge of his fine was denied; (2) that by ordering 

the fine paid while he was incarcerated the district court 

advanced the time of payment of his fine and thus violated his 

protection against double jeopardy and the principle of finality; 

and (3) the district court had no jurisdiction to rule upon his 

motion as his direct appeal was then pending before this court. 

Mr. Costelon asks that we vacate the order of the district court 

and order that Mr. Costelon not be required to pay his fine until 

he is released from custody. 

Filing a notice of appeal "is an event of jurisdictional 

significance it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals 

and divests the district court of its control over those aspects 

of the case involved in the appeal." Griggs v. Provident Consumer 

Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). Accord Stewart v. Donges, 

915 F.2d 572, 575 (10th Cir. 1990). Thus, a district court 

generally loses its jurisdiction once a case is appealed. There 

is, however, an exception to this general rule. Fed. R. Crim. P. 

36 permits a district court to correct a clerical mistake. This 

rule is not applicable to the present situation as no clerical 

mistake exists. 

The Government argues Mr. Costelon's sentence was internally 

ambiguous and therefore illegal. The Government maintains that 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) allows the district court to correct an 

illegal sentence at any time by citing our decision in United 

States v. Earley, 816 F.2d 1428 (10th Cir. 1987) (en bane). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-1337 Document: 010110034228 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 4 
./ 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a), as amended, states a district court 

"shall correct a sentence that is determined to have been 

imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing 

guidelines." Based upon the record in front of us, we cannot say 

the original sentence goes against the guidelines or is so 

"internally ambiguous or self-contradictory that a reasonable 

person cannot determine what the sentence is." Earley, 816 F.2d 

at 1430. 1 Therefore, Fed. R. Crim P. 35(a) does not apply here. 

While Mr. Costelon's direct appeal was pending the district 

court had no jurisdiction to decide the motion for discharge of 

fine because the matter of Mr. Costelon's sentence, including the 

fine, was lodged in this court. See United States v. Costelon, 

No. 88-2246 (10th Cir. October 29, 1990) (unpublished Order and 

Judgment). However, now that this court has rendered a decision 

in Mr. Costelon's direct appeal, we believe the district court 

can, upon our remand of this matter, move forward to decide the 

motion concerning the discharge of the fine. 

Accordingly, we VACATE the district court's "ORDER DENYING 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION REQUESTING DISCHARGE OF FINE PURSUANT TO TITLE 

18 U.S.C. S 3569 - DISCHARGE OF INDIGENT PRISONER" filed October 

12, 1990 and REMAND to the district court so it now may consider 

1 Earley was decided before Rule 35(a) was amended. The new 

rule, applicable when Mr. Costelon was sentenced, "provide[s] even 

less basis" for the Government's argument. Earley, 816 F.2d at 

1432 n.5. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-1337 Document: 010110034228 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 5 
.J 

and decide Mr. Costelon's "MOTION REQUESTING DISCHARGE OF FINE 

PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, U.S.C. 3569 DISCHARGE OF INDIGENT PRISONER" 

filed August 9, 1990, and in light of our decision in Mr. 

Costelon's direct appeal. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge _ 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-1337 Document: 010110034228 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 6