Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02298/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02298-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terry Lynn Foreman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.. FI LED 

United SJ9Jes Courc of Appeals · · --~ Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 19 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

TERRY LYNN FOREMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 89-2298 

(D.C. No. 89-0628 JB) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, 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. 

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion filed under 28 

u.s.c. S 2255. Defendant Foreman raised four issues in the 

district court attacking his five-year sentence for conspiracy to 

*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: 89-2298 Document: 01019971514 Date Filed: 04/19/1990 Page: 1 
distribute marijuana and a consecutive ten-year sentence for 

possession with intent 

contended his sentence 

him as an individual; 

to distribute marijuana. Defendant 

was disproportionate to the crime and to 

that the sentence on the crimes of 

conspiracy and possession violated the Double Jeopardy Clause; 

that the sentencing court refused to exercise its discretion at 

sentencing; and, the sentence violated due process because the 

court failed to take into account the defendant's relative 

culpability in the offenses. On appeal, Mr. Foreman also contends 

for the first time that the prosecutor had knowledge concerning 

the defendant's role in the offense which the prosecutor did not 

disclose to the sentencing court. Mr. Foreman states the 

prosecutor "mistated [sic] or intentionally misled the court." We 

affirm. 

Mr. Foreman was convicted with nine other defendants. His 

appeal from that conviction is reported under the name of United 

States v. Espinosa, 771 F.2d 1382 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 

U.S. 1023 (1985). His present motion raises three of the issues 

dealt with by the court in that prior appeal, Espinosa, 771 F.2d 

at 1402-04, and neither we nor the trial court are obliged to 

reconsider those matters in a subsequent collateral proceeding. 

United States v. Prichard, 875 F.2d 789, 791 (10th Cir. 1989). 

Moreover, whether the United States attorney wrongfully withheld 

mitigating circumstances known to him, and whether he was under an 

obligation to bring such circumstances to the attention of the 

sentencing court are also not before us. Because these questions 

have not been presented to the trial court and consequently abide 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2298 Document: 01019971514 Date Filed: 04/19/1990 Page: 2 
.J 

I 

\ 

in a vacuum of evidence, they are not subject to appeal. United 

States v. Jordan, 890 F.2d 247, 250 (10th Cir. 1989). 

That leaves for consideration only the question of double 

jeopardy. Defendant's conviction of conspiracy to distribute and 

possession with intent to distribute marijuana, both consisting of 

separate offenses and subject to different elements of proof, does 

not constitute double jeopardy. See United States v. Savaiano, 

843 F.2d 1280, 1292 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. 

S. Ct. 99 (1988). 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

circuit Judge 

-3-

, 109 

Appellate Case: 89-2298 Document: 01019971514 Date Filed: 04/19/1990 Page: 3