Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02015/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02015-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ohls
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL~ l) United Statei Court ofAppeala •renth Cil'(,,utt 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 21 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JOHN HOWARD OHLS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 92-2015 

(D.C. No. 91-336 SC) 

(D.N.M.) 

Before McKAY, TACHA, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** Senior Dfstrict 

Judge. 

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 case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

John Ohls pleaded guilty to one count of possession with 

intent to distribute ten grams or more of metharnphetarnine in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1) and 841(b) (1) (B) and one count 

of carrying or using a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking 

* 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 e stoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** The Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., Senior District Judge, 

United States District Court for the District of Colorado, sitting 

by designation. 

Appellate Case: 92-2015 Document: 010110115166 Date Filed: 05/21/1993 Page: 1 
crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1). The district court 

sentenced him to the statutory minimum of five years imprisonment 

and four years supervised release on the first count, and to the 

statutorily mandated consecutive sentence of five years 

imprisonment on the second count. Mr. Ohls now challenges both 

his conviction and his sentence. We affirm. 

Ohls first challenges his conviction on the ground that his 

plea of guilty was involuntary because the advice of his counsel 

was rendered ineffective when the prosecutor told counsel that 

Ohls's sentence on the first count would be based on a criminal 

history category of I under the United States Sentencing 

- Guidelines. The district court ultimately determined the criminal 

history category to be II. Although the district court made no 

fact findings regarding the ineffective assistance claim, we 

reject the claim because it fails as a matter of law. Whether Mr. 

Ohls was entitled to a criminal history category of I or II was 

irrelevant because the court sentenced him to the statutory 

minimum. His counsel knew, or should have known, that he faced 

this minimum sentence if he pleaded· guilty, regardless of the 

appropriate Guidelines range. If Ohls has a claim for ineffective 

assistance, it does not grow out of the facts he alleges here . 

. Mr. Ohls next argues that his sentence on the first count was 

improper because it resulted from an incorrect application of the 

Guidelines. Once again, because the court sentenced him to the < 

statutory minimum on both counts, his arguments regarding the 

application of the Guidelines are irrelevant. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-2015 Document: 010110115166 Date Filed: 05/21/1993 Page: 2 
Finally, Mr. Ohls challenges the district court's denial of 

his motion to suppress. We are without jurisdiction to address 

this challenge because he failed to enter a conditional guilty 

plea. United States v. Nooner, 565 F.2d 633, 634 (10th Cir. 

1977). Although we will not apply this rule when the plea is 

involuntary as the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, 

see id., we have already rejected the ineffective assistance claim 

before us. 

The conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-2015 Document: 010110115166 Date Filed: 05/21/1993 Page: 3