Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05167/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05167-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Peter Joseph McMahon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

OCT O 11991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

vs. 

PETER JOSEPH McMAHON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Nos. 90-5167, 90-5243 

(D.C. No. 90-CR-48-B) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY and LOGAN, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, District 

Judge.** 

Defendant-appellant Peter Joseph McMahon (defendant) was 

initially arrested on gun and drugs charges in Oklahoma. The 

magistrate, finding no conditions upon which defendant could be 

released, ordered that defendant be detained. He further ordered 

* 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. 

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

District Court for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-5167 Document: 010110090718 Date Filed: 10/01/1991 Page: 1 
-.. 

that defendant undergo drug rehabilitation treatment. Defendant 

then left the drug treatment facility, and subsequently was charged 

with escape in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 75l(a). 

Defendant moved for dismissal of the charge, asserting that 

since the magistrate did not have the authority to place conditions 

on defendant's detention, his departure from the treatment center 

was not an escape, but was merely a violation of a court order. 

The district court, in denying the motion to dismiss, ruled that 

the treatment ordered by the magistrate was not a "condition" of 

detention. Rather, the court ruled, defendant "was allowed to 

receive drug treatment while 'in custody'." Defendant then pled 

guilty, reserving his right of appeal of the denial of his motion 

to dismiss. 

At sentencing, the trial court refused to grant defendant a 

reduction in his level of sentence under amendment 2Pl.l(b) (3) to 

the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant then moved to 

reduce or modify sentence on the basis of an alleged refusal by the 

trial court to retroactively apply the amendment. In its order, 

the trial court noted that, even if it applied the amendment 

retroactively, defendant would not be entitled to a reduction in 

sentence because of the nature of the offence committed by the 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-5167 Document: 010110090718 Date Filed: 10/01/1991 Page: 2 
defendant and the defendant's history. 

Defendant appeals from these orders denying his motions. 

After examining the record, we are satisfied that the fact findings 

of the district court are not erroneous and that its application 

of the law was correct. We affirm for substantially the reasons 

stated in the district court's order of June 25, 1990 denying 

defendant's motion to dismiss, and the district court's order of 

November 16, 1990 denying defendant's motion to reduce or modify 

sentence. 

AFFIRMED 

Entered for the Court 

Clarence A. Brimmer 

Chief District Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-5167 Document: 010110090718 Date Filed: 10/01/1991 Page: 3