Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02146/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02146-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry E. Hatcher
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

Uruted Scares U>Un of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT NOV 15 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JERRY E. HATCHER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-2146 

(O.C. No. 89-18JC-01) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, LOGAN and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a 

decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(f): 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Jerry H. Hatcher appeals a sentencing decision by 

the district court. His contention is that the district court ; 

erred in failing to review the government's allegedly arbitrary 

and unfair decision not to file a motion pursuant to u.s.s.G. 

S SKl.l, and in refusing to order the government to file such a 

* 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: 89-2146 Document: 010110051283 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 1 
motion. The defendant contends that the issue is not only 

reviewable by this court, but that the failure of the government 

to file the motion in light of the cooperation given was a 

violation of his due process rights. 

This case is controlled by United States v. Deases, __ F.2d 

(10th Cir. Nov._, 1990); United States v. Sorenson, 

F.2d __ (10th Cir. Sept. 21, 1990); and United States v. Kuntz, 

908 F.2d 655 (10th Cir. 1990). We have dealt with all the issues 

in those cases and affirm for the reasons stated in those 

decisions. Although the government knew at the time defendant 

agreed to cooperate that he was wanted on charges in Texas for 

which he was subsequently arrested, the government could 

reasonably rely on defendant to secure his release in sufficient 

time to help the government. Defendant failed to do so. This 

does not constitute the type of "egregious case" envisioned in 

Kuntz (citing United States v. La Guardia, 902 F.2d 1010 (1st Cir. 

1990). 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2146 Document: 010110051283 Date Filed: 11/15/1990 Page: 2