Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04211/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04211-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bruce T. Gottschalk
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

BRUCE T. GOTTSCHALK, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

FIL.r.jD United Stat~ Coμrt ~! App~alu Tent.'1 C1rcu1, 

APR 13 i992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEP.. 

Clerk 

v . No. 91-4211 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

(D.C. NO. 91-C-1041 W) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALOOCK, 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 . 

3 4(a); 10th Cir. R. 34 .1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Bruce T. Gottschalk appeals the denial of his moti o n to 

vacate sentence filed pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2255. He claims his 

due process rights were violated due to the absence o f a referral 

policy dictating whether a perso n should be tried in a state fo rum 

or a federal f or um. Mr. Gottschalk previously pled guilty t o 

violations of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and his case 

has been before us on an appeal from the district c o urt's ruling 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and s hall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing t he doctrines of the l aw of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36 .3. 

Appellate Case: 91-4211 Document: 010110242258 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 1
on a motion to suppress. United States v. Gottschalk, 915 F.2d 

1459 (10th Cir. 1990). The motion filed by Mr. Gottschalk, 

relating to the appeal which is now before us, does not challenge 

his plea of guilty, and Mr. Gottschalk did not raise the due 

process issue urged here either at the time he entered his plea of 

guilty, at sentencing, or on direct appeal. 

After carefully reviewing the record, including the pleadings 

and arguments advanced by Mr. Gottschalk, we affirm the district 

court substantially on the grounds and for the reasons set forth 

in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed 

October 11, 1991 and the district court's "Order Overruling 

Plaintiff's Objections to Report and Recommendation and Denying 

Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate his Sentence" filed No vember 5, 1991, 

copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated by this 

reference. 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

St ephen H. Anderso n 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-4211 Document: 010110242258 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 2
.•· 

f-lLEO IN l.lNfTEO STATES DISTRICT 

COURT. DISTRl~T OF UT A~ 

OCT 111991 

IAARKUS B. ZIMMER, CL~fl 

uy ________ , 

< ~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OTlffl'J!Y CLE~!< 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

BRUCE T. GOTI'SCHALK, ) 

) 

Plaintiff(s), ) Case No. 91-C-1041 W 

) 

vs. ) 

UNITED 

) 

STATES OF AMERICA, ) REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

) 

Defendant(s). ) 

Bruce T. Gottschalk, a federal inmate confined at the 

federal prison at Lompoc, California has filed a motion to vacate 

his sentence under 28 u.s.c. § 2255. The movant was charged in 

the District of Utah in 89-CR-165 W with manufacture and 

attempted manufacture of methamphetamine, using a firearm during 

a drug crime and possession of an explosive device. The case was 

prosecuted in federal court, but state metro narcotics officers 

were involved in the investigation. The case resulted in a 

conviction on April 19, 1991 on a plea of guilty. No appeal was 

taken to the court of Appeals except for a pre-plea interlocutory 

appeal based on a suppression of evidence claim which was decided 

adverse to movant. 

The movant now contends that his motion to vacate s)lould be 

granted because there was no "strike force policy ••• regarding 

referral of cases for federal prosecution." Havant contends this 

constitutes a violation of due process and entitles him to be 

Appellate Case: 91-4211 Document: 010110242258 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 3
resentenced without regard to federal sentencing standards. 

The case has been referred to the magistrate judge under 28 

u.s.c. § 636(b)(l) (B). The motion has been reviewed under Rule 

4, Rules Governing section 225~ cases. This report and 

recommendation has been submitted on the motion to vacate. 

The movant places reliance for his motion on the decision of 

Judge Greene ot this District in United States Yr Williams and 

~. 746 F.Supp. 1676, 1678 (O.Utah 1990) wherein Judge Greene 

ruled procedural due proc ess was violated where there was no 

criteria for the exercise discretion of whether to pursue federal 

or state prosecution for drug violations. Judge Gree ne then 

applied state sentencing matrix inspite of minimum mandatory 

statutory provisions and sentencing guidelines to the contrary. 

The movant, in this case, entered a plea of guilty to t~e 

charge. The movant does not challenge his plea of guilty but 

seeks to be resentenced "irrespective of Federal Sentencing 

Guidelines" and that the state penalties be conside r e d, which was 

relief afforded in the Wi lliams case, infra. Movant did not 

raise this issue before, at sentencing or on appeal. It can be 

legitimately concluded that the motion is procedurally barred. 

United States v, Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982). The sentence was 

not in excess of that allowed by law (see United Stat e s v. Long, 

787 F.2d 538, 539 (10th Cir.1986) but involved a question of 

constitutional process in the charging of movant. This could 

have been and should have been raised earlier, or on appeal, and 

the failure to do so should be considered a bar t o the movant's 

reque st tor relief unde r§ 2255. United States y. Frady. 

Appellate Case: 91-4211 Document: 010110242258 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 4
The issue raised by ovant was before the United States 

court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in United States Y, 

Anderson, 940 F.2d 593 (10th cir.1991). The defendant argued he 

was denied due proceffs when state charges were dropped and 

federal charges substituted. Defendant relied on United States 

Y, Williams, supra. The circumstances involved an investigation 

by the Weber/Morgan County Narcotics Strike force. The court 

held "discretion afforded prosecutors in cases like that before 

us does not violate due process." The matter rests in the sound 

discretion of the prosecutor (Id). The court observed defendant 

could be prosecuted by both state and federal governments. The 

court expressly held the due process challenge to the 

prosecutor's discretion was without merit even if additional 

federal penalties are provided. The court also explained t~e 

defendant did not understand the role the strike force played in 

the prosecution process. It does not determine the jurisdiction. 

The prosecutor makes the decision to proceed or not, in a given 

case. The Court of Appeals held no standards were required for 

the United States Attorney's judgment. Consequently, the 

Anderson decision rejects the reasoning of the Williams case 

relied on by movant and the movant's due process argument must be 

rejected. 

Conclusion 

The motion of Bruce T. Gottschalk, to vacate his sentence, 

should be denied. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-4211 Document: 010110242258 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 5
Copies of the foregoing report and recommendation are being 

a.ailed to the parties. They are hereby notified of their right 

to file objections hereto within ten days trom the receipt 

hereof. 

DATED this day of october, 1991. 

N. Boyce 

States Magistrate Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing REPORT and RECOMMENDATION has been mEed, postage 

prepaid, to all parties named below on this \ day of Oc t ober, 

1991. 

Bruce T. Gottschalk 

3901 Klein Blvd. 

#02750-081, F.-Unit 

Lompoc, CA 93436 

Wayne Dance 

Ass t. U.S. Attorney 

350 So. Main St. 

Salt Lake City, UT 84101 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-4211 Document: 010110242258 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 6
.. - ,-( 

..... : : : : . . • r • ., I • • , 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

BRUCE T. GOTTSCHALK, 

Plaintiff, 

-vsUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

ORDER OVERRULING 

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS 

TO REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO VACATE HIS 

SENTENCE 

Civil No: 91-C-1041W 

Plaintiff, Bruce T. Gottschalk, filed a motion to 

vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The matter was 

referred to the magistrate judge, Honorable Ronald N. Boyce, who 

issued his report and recommendation on October 11, 1991, 

recommending that plaintiff's motion to vacate his sentence be 

denied. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed timely objections to the 

magistrate report and recommendation. This court has now made a 

de novo review of all matters to which objection has been made to 

the report and r ecommendation and, in fact, this court has made a 

de novo review of the entire file. It appears to the court that 

the magistrate judge has thoroughly and correctly analyzed the 

law that relates to this motion and that the plaintiff, Bruce T. 

Gottschalk's motion is procedurally barred. Because the 

., 

I 

" .. 

Appellate Case: 91-4211 Document: 010110242258 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 7
magistrate judge's report and recommendation completely responds 

to the plaintiff's motion and to the objections that have been 

raised, this court sees no need to elaborate furthe r on the 

matter, and based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows : 

1. This court adopts the report and recommend ation of 

the magistrate judge entere d on October 11, 1991. 

2. The plaintiff , Bruce T. Gottsc h alk's moti o n to 

v acate his sentence i s denied. 

Dated this ~ day o f Nove mber, 1 991. 

vbc~ al 111l!c,Q David K. inder 

United States District Judge 

Mailed a copy of t he foregoing to the following named 

counsel this Li L 7!- day of Novembe r, 1991. 

Bruce T. Gottschalk 

3901 Klein Boulevard 

#02750-08, F.-Unit 

Lompoc, California 93436 

Wayne Dance 

Assistant U. S . Attorne y 

476 U. S. Courtho use 

Salt Lake City, Utah 8 4101 

~ ~-ry 

d_ ~~-­

2 

Appellate Case: 91-4211 Document: 010110242258 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 8