Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01261/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01261-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Powers
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.. .FILLD 

United Stat.es Court of Apl)( 1s 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

DANIEL POWERS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

MAY 2 0 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 92-1261 

(D.C. No. 84-CR-328) 

(D. Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and EBEL, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

The district court revoked Daniel Powers' probation after 

finding he had submitted false reports to his probation officer 

and had engaged in new criminal activity. Powers appeals, arguing 

that the district court's findings were based upon insufficient 

* 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: 92-1261 Document: 010110115125 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 1 
evidence, that his sentence was excessive, and that he was denied 

effective assistance of counsel. We affirm. 

FACTS 

In 1985, Daniel Powers was convicted of interstate transportation of fraudulent securities and conspiracy to commit the same 

offense. The district court sentenced Powers to two years' 

imprisonment on the conspiracy count, a suspended sentence on the 

additional count, and five years' probation. 

Powers was released from prison in December, 1987, at which 

time he commenced his five-year period of supervised probation. 

In January, 1992, the U.S. Probation Office filed with the 

district court its violation report alleging that Powers had filed 

false written reports and had failed to follow the instructions of 

his probation officer. At Powers' compliance hearing in March, 

1992, the government informed the court that it had received a 

complaint from a University of Denver college professor, Ken 

Purcell, who maintained that he had invested $60,000 in a business 

purportedly run by Powers and others, and that his investment had 

not been placed in escrow or returned to Purcell as agreed. R. 

Supp. Vol. II at 5. Concerned that Powers was engaged in the same 

kind of activity that resulted in his original conviction, the 

district court instructed the probation office to amend its report 

to include any business activities in which Powers had engaged 

since his release from prison in 1987. Id. at 4. After further 

investigation, the U.S. Probation Office filed an amended 

violation report on May 1, 1992, alleging that Powers had not only 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-1261 Document: 010110115125 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 2 
filed false supervision reports, but had also committed theft by 

deception and securities fraud in violation of Colorado criminal 

statutes. R. Vol. I, Tab 16. 

A revocation hearing took place on May 28-29, 1992. Testimony of several government witnesses revealed that for 

approximately four years, Powers had been involved in a series of 

real estate development projects, that he had asked for and 

received over $300,000 from individual investors, and that he 

falsely told each of these investors that funding for his large 

scale projects was in the process of closing, close to closing, or 

imminent. Representative of the testimony is the following. 

In connection with one of his projects, Creative Development, 

Inc. (CDI), Powers convinced Gloria Suer to invest approximately 

$125,000, including a $70,000 line of credit for which she put up 

her farm and a 1932 Chevrolet as collateral. Powers assured Suer 

repeatedly that funding for CDI was imminent, that she would be 

repaid her funds very soon, and that she would receive an interest 

in CDI. R. Vol. III at 74-84. Powers also told Suer that he and 

his two partners had invested their own money in the project, and 

led her to believe that he had personally invested $200,000 Id. 

at 97, 106. Funding for the project never materialized and, 

ultimately, Suers lost her entire investment, and the farm she had 

used for collateral was foreclosed upon. 

Darlene Fuchs also invested over $100,000 in CDI. R. Vol. 

III at 14. Powers made many of the same representations to Fuchs 

as he had to Suer, including the fact that he had mortgaged his 

home to invest in CDI, id. at 56, and that funding was already 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-1261 Document: 010110115125 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 3 
available for CDI. Id. at 19, 37. Additionally, Powers lied to 

Fuchs about his criminal record. Id. at 13. Fuchs, like Suer, 

lost her entire investment. 

In connection with a second project, the Colorado International Communications Center (CICC), Powers convinced a Denver 

businessman, Gene Motta, to part with approximately $26,000 as 

operating expenses for the project. Motta also invested $75,000 

in a downtown hotel renovation project, Skyline 19. Motta 

invested in the two projects after Powers showed him the financial 

statement of Peter Youssef, a "wealthy Arab" whom Powers said 

would be funding the projects. R. Vol. III at 116-21. Youssef 

testified that the financial statement shown to Motta was 

"completely wrong," id. at 202, and that he had neither the 

intention nor the ability to invest in Powers' projects. Id. at 

177, 198. CICC and Skyline were never funded, and Motta lost all 

but about $14,000 of his investment. Id. at 145, 154. 

Ken Purcell agreed to invest $60,000 in another Powers 

project, Golden West Investment Corporation. This sum was to be 

held in escrow and released only if and when Golden West received 

a commitment for a loan. A written agreement between Purcell and 

Golden West stated: "[I]f the loan is not received within 30 

days, then all escrow funds with accrued interest dating back to 

February 27, [1991], when [Purcell] initially invested, would be 

returned to [Purcell] within 10 days following the end of the 

30-day period, beginning on July 24th." R. Vol. IV at 328-29. 

The loan did not come through, and Purcell's funds were not 

returned to him. Id. at 329. After being put off by Powers on 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-1261 Document: 010110115125 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 4 
' . several occasions, Purcell contacted the U.S. Attorney's Office. 

Id. at 338-39. He received his $60,000 back a few weeks before 

Powers' May 28, 1992 hearing. 

Finally, the government called several other witnesses who 

were not actually investors, but who provided professional 

services in connection with Powers' various projects. These 

individuals, including two architects, an engineer, and a member 

of a construction management firm, were not paid for their 

services. R. Vol. IV at 231, 256, 285, 311, 345-50. 

On June 16, 1992, the district court issued an Order for 

Revocation of Probation in which it found that Powers had engaged 

in theft by deception, in violation Colorado law. He further 

found that Powers had falsely reported his employment and net 

earnings to his probation officer. R. Supp. Vol. I, Tab 1 at 3. 

At his sentencing hearing held on August 14, 1992, Powers was 

sentenced to ten years imprisonment with eligibility for parole 

after serving one-third of his term. 1 R. Vol. II at 397. 

DISCUSSION 

1. Sufficiency of Evidence 

Powers first contends that the district court's finding of 

new criminal activity, theft by deception, was not supported by 

sufficient evidence. In particular, he asserts that the government failed to prove his intent to deceive, or that any of his 

1 Because the criminal conduct for which Powers was originally 

sentenced occurred prior to the Sentencing Reform Act, the district court's imposition of the ten-year sentence upon revocation 

of probation was pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4205(a). R. Vol. I, Tab 

25. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 92-1261 Document: 010110115125 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 5 
investors relied on his alleged misrepresentations. Appellant's 

Opening Brief at 5-6. 

Revocation of probation is within the discretion of the 

district court, and we will reverse its decision only for fundamental unfairness or for an abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Reber, 876 F.2d 81, 83 (10th Cir. 1989). The district court may 

revoke probation if it is "'reasonably satisfied that a violation 

of probation conditions has occurred.'" Id. (quoting United 

States v. Rife, 835 F.2d 154, 156 (7th Cir. 1987)). "This 

standard applies to all violations of probation, including 

violations based on state law offenses ... [and] the court need 

not find proof of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt 

11 United States v. Levine, 983 F.2d 785, 787 (7th Cir. 

1993). ... 

The district court properly revoked Powers' probation. The 

government's evidence, which addressed all the elements of theft 

by deception under Colorado law, 2 enabled the court to reasonably 

satisfy itself that Powers had violated state law. 

The offense of theft by deception requires proof that the 

defendant "knowingly or intentionally deprived the victim permanently of something of value ... by means of misrepresentations 

upon which the victim relied 11 People v. Stewart, 739 P.2d 

2 Colo~ Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-4-401 states: 

(1) A person commits theft when he knowingly obtains or 

exercises control over anything of value of another 

without authorization, or by threat or deception; and: 

(a) Intends to deprive the other person permanently 

of the use or benefit of the thing or value .... 

-6-

Appellate Case: 92-1261 Document: 010110115125 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 6 
.. 856, 855 (Colo. 1987) (citations omitted). Intent can be inferred 

from the defendant's conduct and from the circumstances of the 

case. Id. 

Powers induced several people to invest in development 

schemes by making false or misleading statements as to sources of 

funding. He falsely represented his own investment in these 

projects, and he falsely characterized the financial status of 

others, including Peter Youssef, whom Powers repeatedly referred 

to as the one who "was going to fund these projects, with. 

family money." R. Vol. III at 105. Suer, Fuchs, Motta and 

Purcell all relied on Powers' misrepresentations about funding 

sources and his promises that these projects would close within a 

matter of days or weeks, promises which Powers did not and could 

not keep. The district court expressly found that "Powers did not 

have any reasonable belief that he could obtain the necessary 

funding and his representations were false and fraudulent." R. 

Supp. Vol. I, Tab 1 at 3. Accordingly, we hold that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in finding sufficient evidence 

to reasonably satisfy itself that Powers, "by a pattern and 

practice of conduct over several years[,] has repeatedly violated 

the Colorado criminal statutes prohibiting theft by deception." 

Id. 

Likewise, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion 

in finding that Powers submitted false reports to his probation 

officer concerning his employment and his net earnings. The 

reports show that Powers told the probation office he was employed 

at Hunter Carpet Sales from August through December, 1991, and 

-7-

Appellate Case: 92-1261 Document: 010110115125 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 7 
that he earned $6,400 during that period. R. Vol. IV at 361. 

However, testimony of the owner of Hunter Carpet, Steve Hunter, 

revealed that Powers had earned and received only $199.87 during 

the period in question. Id. at 279-80. We deem this evidence 

sufficient for the district court to reasonably satisfy itself 

that Powers had violated the terms and conditions of his 

probation. 

2. Excessiveness of Sentence 

Powers next asserts that the district court's imposition of a 

ten-year sentence for his probation violation was "extraordinarily 

harsh under the circumstances." Appellant's Opening Brief at 31. 

When probation has been revoked, the district court "may 

impose any sentence which might originally have been imposed." 18 

u.s.c. § 3653; see,~, United States v. Szabo, 854 F.2d 251, 

254 (7th Cir. 1988) (district court did not abuse its discretion 

in sentencing defendant to three years' imprisonment upon probation revocation, even though defendant's original sentence was 

three years' probation); Sims v. United States, 607 F.2d 757, 

758-59 (6th Cir. 1979) (after suspending imposition of sentence 

and placing defendant on probation for two years, district court 

was authorized, upon revocation of probation, to impose sentence 

in excess of two years). Moreover, "[i]f a sentence is within 

statutory limits and not predicated upon misinformation or 

constitutionally impermissible considerations, then it is not 

subject to review on appeal." Szabo, 854 F.2d at 254; United 

States v. Endicott, 803 F.2d 506, 510 (9th Cir. 1986). 

-8-

Appellate Case: 92-1261 Document: 010110115125 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 8 
• I 

• 

Powers does not dispute the district court's statutory 

authority to impose upon him a ten-year sentence, nor does he 

argue that the sentence was based on misinformation or constitutionally impermissible considerations. None of these factors 

being present, we will not review the district court's sentencing 

decision. 

3. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

Powers also asserts that he was denied effective assistance 

of counsel because his attorney did not call any witnesses to 

testify in his defense. This claim was not raised in the trial 

court. If a claim of ineffective assistance is not raised in the 

trial court, such claim will not be resolved on direct appeal, 

except in the rare case in which the record is sufficiently 

complete for effective appellate review. Beaulieu v. United 

States, 930 F.2d 805, 807 (10th Cir. 1991). In Beaulieu, the 

court gave several examples of allegations of ineffective 

assistance of counsel which "cannot be determined on the basis of 

the trial record alone." Id. at 808. These include allegations 

that "trial counsel failed to interview or call certain 

witnesses," id., allegations which Powers raises here. 

Because of the nature of these allegations we decline to 

address the ineffective assistance claims in this direct appeal, 

see Beaulieu, 930 F.2d at 805 n.2, and dismiss the appeal as to 

this issue only, without prejudice to its examination on 

collateral proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

-9-

Appellate Case: 92-1261 Document: 010110115125 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 9 
CONCLUSION 

Mr. Powers' claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is 

DISMISSED, without prejudice to renewal in a collateral 

proceeding. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

-10-

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-1261 Document: 010110115125 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 10