Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06297/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06297-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Danny Lee Green
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

-~I,JtJsJtesL~Rppu UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAfl~ Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT APR 15 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

No . 92-6297 

(W.D. Okla., No. 91-CV-1194) 

DANNY LEE GREEN, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.** 

The appellant, Danny Lee Green, appeals from the August 5, 

1992, order of the district court denying his 28 U.S.C. §2255 

motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence . We affirm. 

On August 14, 1989, Green plead guilty to multiple violations 

of federal narcotics laws. Although he attempted to withdraw his 

guilty plea on August 17, 1989, the district court, after 

conducting a hearing, denied the request. Green was sentenced to 

one term of 20 years and seven terms of 30 years, to be served 

* 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. 

** 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 92-6297 Document: 010110201733 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 1 
concurrently, in addition to terms of supervised release and a 

special assessment. 

On December 11, 1989, Green filed a notice of appeal of his 

conviction. Tenth Cir. 89-6420. He later attempted to dismiss 

the appeal of his conviction, and to institute a separate appeal 

challenging his sentence. Tenth Cir. 91-6067. On February 21, 

1991, this court denied his motion to dismiss the appeal of the 

conviction and ordered counsel to submit supplemental briefs on 

the sentencing issues.

1 On May 9, 1991 we issued an order that 

dismissed as untimely Green's second appeal, which challenged his 

sentence (Tenth Cir. 91-6067). However, in our order in Appeal 

No. 89-6420, we addressed the merits of the sentencing issues. 

United States v. Danny Lee Green, Tenth Cir. 89-6420 & 91-6067. 

We determined that Green's claims were without merit. 

On July 30, 1991, Green filed a 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion to 

vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. On the same day, the case 

was assigned to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636. 

The government responded to the motions with briefs filed on 

August 26, 1991, and May 27, 1992. On June 26, 1992, the 

magistrate filed a Report and Recommendation finding that two of 

Green's claims had been decided in the direct appeal and that the 

third was without merit. No objections were filed to the Report 

and Recommendation . Accordingly, the district court adopted the 

1 It appears that defense counsel never filed a supplemental 

brief on the sentencing issues. However, Green filed two prose 

briefs on those issues, one on March 14, 1991, and the other on 

April 26, 1991. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6297 Document: 010110201733 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 2 
magistrate's report and recommendation in full. This appeal 

followed. 

The Tenth Circuit has adopted a rule which provides that, 

when a party fails to object to the findings and recommendations 

of the magistrate judge, appellate review of both factual and 

legal questions is waived. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 

659 (10th Cir. 1991); Niehaus v. Kansas Bar Ass'n, 793 F.2d 1159, 

1164-65 (10th Cir. 1986) . However, we have also made it very 

clear that a prose petitioner does not waive his right to object 

to the magistrate's report unless the consequences of a failure to 

object are made clear on the face of the report. Hardiman v. 

Reynolds, 971 F.2d 500, 505 (10th Cir. 1992); Moore, 950 F . 2d at 

659. 

In the instant case, the magistrate's report sets forth time 

limitations for objections and makes the consequences of a failure 

to object clear. It states: 

RECOMMENDATION 

In accordance with the foregoing, the court 

recommends that the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or 

Correct Sentence be denied. Any party may file an 

objection to this Report and Recommendation on or before 

the 13 day of July, 1992. Failure to make timely 

objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the 

right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court 

based on these findings and recommendations. 

Magistrate's Report and Recommendation of June 26, 1992. R. Vol. 

I at tab 551. We find that the appellant received proper notice 

of the procedures and deadlines for filing as well as the 

consequences associated with not filing, objections to the 

magistrate's report and recommendations. See Moore, 950 F .2d at 

659. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-6297 Document: 010110201733 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 3 
Despite being notified of the consequences of inaction, the 

appellant failed t o file objections to the magistrate's report 

prior to the issuance of the district court's opinion on August 5, 

1992. Accordingly, the objections raised in this appeal have been 

waive . d 2 . The order of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

2 The waiver rule as a procedural bar need not be applied where 

"the interests of justice so dictate." Moore, 950 F.2d at 659 

(citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985 )) . However, we 

find, on the facts of this case, that the interests of justice 

exception does not compel us to overlook the waiver rule. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-6297 Document: 010110201733 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 4