Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06438/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06438-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bernard J. McIntyre
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

U{1ited States Court of Appeals 

Tr:nth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Ml~R 11991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

BERNARD J. MCINTYRE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-6438 

) (D.C. No. CIV-89-2122-T) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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 case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

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. We affirm the district court's 

denial of the motion on the ground that it is successive. 

* 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. 

Appellate Case: 89-6438 Document: 010110031056 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 1 
Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to 

distribute cocaine and five counts relating to possession, 

distribution, and use of a telephone to facilitate distribution of 

cocaine. On direct appeal, this court reversed the conspiracy 

conviction and affirmed the other convictions. United States v. 

McIntyre, 836 F.2d 467 (10th Cir. 1987). Defendant filed a 

petition for rehearing alleging that the coconspirator hearsay 

statements were inadmissible. Rehearing was denied. 

Defendant then filed his first section 2255 motion in the 

district court. He contended, inter alia, that because this court 

determined there was no conspiracy, it was error to allow 

coconspirator hearsay statements into evidence. Denying the 

motion, the district court determined that there was no merit to 

the contention and that defendant failed to show cause for failing 

to raise the issue on direct appeal. 

Rather than appealing the denial of section 2255 relief, 

defendant filed a second section 2255 motion in the district court 

alleging (1) the hearsay evidence was improperly admitted; (2) the 

FBI and government knew no conspiracy existed but used the 

conspiracy count to achieve convictions for the other counts; and 

(3) the jury convicted him based on tainted evidence. The 

district court denied the motion as successive 

these issues previously had been raised 

defendant. Defendant appealed. 

after determining 

and decided against 

After carefully examining the briefs and record on appeal, we 

conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

dismissing defendant's second section 2255 motion as successive. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6438 Document: 010110031056 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 2 
See Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 18 (1963). The second 

motion raised the same ground previously asserted and denied by 

the first motion. 

(10th Cir. 1979). 

See United States v. Talk, 597 F.2d 249, 250 

Defendant's motion for leave to proceed on appeal without 

prepayment of costs or fees is GRANTED. The judgment of the 

United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma 

is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6438 Document: 010110031056 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 3