Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02803/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02803-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fred J. Hubble
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

r 

FILED 

Uniwd Stlltfs Co~rt ~f Appeals 

'rpnth C!:"'tJr-: 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAN 2 6 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 87-2803 

) ( D. C. No. 87-162-P) 

FRED J. HUBBLE, ) (W. D. Okla.) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Defendant-appellant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, 

of bank fraud and was sentenced to a term of five years 

imprisonment. On appeal, defendant raises two issues: 1) the 

district court abused his discretion by imposing the maximum 

* 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: 87-2803 Document: 01019961697 Date Filed: 01/26/1990 Page: 1 
sentence and 2) defendant was denied the effective assistance of 

counsel in violation of the sixth amendment. 

It is well settled that a criminal sentence imposed within 

statutory limits is not subject to appellate review. 

sentence imposed was within statutory limits. 

Here, the 

Defendant argues that defense counsel was inadequately 

prepared at the time of sentencing and failed in presenting 

mitigating circumstances. Review of the transcript indicates that 

both defendant and counsel were afforded wide latitude in 

presenting their side of the story with respect to pending state 

charges and in mitigation of punishment. Defendant does not state 

what additional mitigating information could have been presented. 

Our study of the record does not reveal that counsel's 

representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. 

See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-2803 Document: 01019961697 Date Filed: 01/26/1990 Page: 2