Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-03322/USCOURTS-ca10-07-03322-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Mancillas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 10, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 07-3322

v. (D. of Kan.)

VICTOR MANCILLAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

(D.C. No. 02-CR-10140-MLB)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before LUCERO, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.** 

Victor Mancillas, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the district

court’s denial of his motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, we

AFFIRM the district court’s order.

Appellate Case: 07-3322 Document: 0101142273 Date Filed: 03/10/2008 Page: 1 
1

 Because Mancillas is proceeding pro se, we construe his petition

liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

2

 Mancillas specifically requested relief under Rule 35, and thus we need

not address other grounds listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) that provide district courts

with authority to reduce sentences.

-2-

I.

This is Mancillas’s fourth time in our court, and his third visit related to

sentencing. The last time we considered Mancillas’s 97-month term of

imprisonment for a litany of drug-related offenses, we found no error with the

district court’s sentence and affirmed. United States v. Mancillas, 180 F. App’x

820, 823 (10th Cir. 2006). Repeating the argument he previously asserted, and

supplying a couple of new claims, Mancillas filed a motion in the district court

seeking to reduce his 97-month sentence pursuant to Rule 35.1

II.

Rule 35 authorizes the district court to reduce a defendant’s sentence only

in one of two instances:2

 (1) “Within 7 days after sentencing, the court may

correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error,”

Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a); or (2) “Upon the government’s motion . . . , the court may

reduce a sentence if the defendant, after sentencing, provided substantial

assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person,” id. 35(b). United

States v. Green, 405 F.3d 1180, 1184–85 (10th Cir. 2005) (same). Because

Mancillas filed his motion well past the seven-day limitations period, and because

Appellate Case: 07-3322 Document: 0101142273 Date Filed: 03/10/2008 Page: 2 
-3-

the motion was not initiated by the government, we agree the district court did not

have authority under Rule 35 to reduce Mancillas’s sentence.

To the extent Mancillas appears to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel

claim, we remind him of what we said the first time he appealed his sentence:

This court has repeatedly stated that ineffective assistance claims

should be brought in collateral proceedings, not on direct appeal. . . . 

Such claims brought on direct appeal are presumptively dismissible,

and virtually all will be dismissed. . . . Mr. Mancillas has failed to

show his claim qualifies as one of those rare instances in which we

should hear an ineffective counsel challenge on direct review.

United States v. Mancillas, 132 F. App’x 780, 783 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal

citations and quotation marks omitted). Because he again failed to demonstrate

why we should consider his ineffective assistance claim on this appeal, we again

decline to address it.

III.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order denying Mancillas’s

Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence. But even though he did not prevail on

appeal, we remind Mancillas of his obligation to pay the filing fee.

Entered for the Court

Timothy M. Tymkovich

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 07-3322 Document: 0101142273 Date Filed: 03/10/2008 Page: 3