Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03302/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03302-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Franklin Andres Uceta
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.. 

FIL E D ,_ United States Court of Appcaaa Tent.11 Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

SEP O 3 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

FRANKLIN ANDRES UCETA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-3302 

(D.C. No. 90-3405-K) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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 an order denying a motion for release 

under 28 u.s.c. § 2255. Franklin Andres Uceta urges his 

conviction should be set aside because he was denied effective 

*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: 90-3302 Document: 010110084247 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 1 
... 

representation by counsel at his trial. In the district court he 

based his contention on four premises not argued in this court. 

On appeal, he contends his counsel was ineffective because he 

failed to subpoena a "critical witness. 111 We will not consider an 

issue not presented to the trial court and raised for the first 

time on appeal. Gillihan v. Shillinger, 872 F.2d 935, 938 (10th 

Cir. 1989). Because Mr. Uceta makes no other argument, we have 

independently examined the issues he raised in his § 2255 

petition. After consideration of those issues, and the 

government's answer brief, we conclude the district court did not 

err in dismissing the petition. 

court is AFFIRMED. 

The judgment of the district 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

1

The issues were presented to the district court by Mr. Uceta in a 

memorandum of law filed September 24, 1990. Because that document 

was not contained in the record, we ordered it delivered to us 

under 10th Cir. R. 10.2.4. Our examination of that document 

confirms Mr. Uceta raised different issues in the district than 

the one on appeal. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3302 Document: 010110084247 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 2