Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01856/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01856-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Eugene Hickman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Starn C.ourr of Appeals 

Tenth Clrc:uit 

FEB 2 3 1988 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

DONALD EUGENE HICKMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-1856 

(D.C. No. CR-79-183-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

designation. 

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. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Defendant appeals from an order of the district court denying 

his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence filed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In his § 2255 motion and 

memorandum, defendant alleged that his consecutive sentences 

Appellate Case: 87-1856 Document: 010110027483 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 1 
violated double jeopardy, were contrary to the Comprehensive 

Crime Control Act of 1984, and were excessive. 

The district court determined that the consecutive sentences 

did not constitute double jeopardy, because defendant was charged 

with and pled guilty to separate and distinct offenses. Also, the 

d i strict court determined the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 

1984 was not in effect and did not apply to defendant. Finally, 

the district court determined that the excessive sentence 

allegation had been raised and rejected in a Fed. R. Crim . P. 35 

application to reduce sentence. Defendant appealed. 

Subsequently, defendant filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

contending that because he did not receive a copy of plaintiff's 

response to the§ 2255 motion, he was unable to file a traverse. 

The district court construed the petition for writ of mandamus as 

a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion and denied the motion as untimely. 

On appeal, defendant continues to assert the arguments he 

presented to the district court. We conclude the district court 

appropriately denied the§ 2255 motion. 

Defendant's request for oral argument is DENIED. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

West er n District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1856 Document: 010110027483 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 2