Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03344/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03344-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Davis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

;:-;,I - 1 D 1:1 1-J .tJ 

COURT OF APPEALS United Stat~s Court of A:cmc::ib UNITED STATES 'fc-.;1h G rcui: ' . 

TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 1 f 1992 

RORy'RT L. HOECEE!: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

GEORGE DAVIS, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

Cler!: 

Nos. 91-3344 & 91-3354 

(D.C. Nos. 91-10040-01 & 89-10033-01) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

This appeal is from an order of the district court sentencing 

defendant to two consecutive imprisonment terms of 24 months. 

Defendant appeals this sentence on the ground that the district 

court erred by failing to make sufficient findings that would 

reveal to the appellate court whether the district court believed 

it had discretion to impose concurrent rather than consecutive 

sentences in two separate cases consolidated for sentencing. We 

affirm. 

The determination of whether to impose a consecutive or 

concurrent sentence is within the sound discretion of the trial 

court. United States~ Kalady. 941 F.2d 1090 (10th Cir. 1991). 

* 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: 91-3344 Document: 010110276712 Date Filed: 08/11/1992 Page: 1
Although the parties entered into a plea agreement in this case, 

the district court clearly considered the agreement and determined 

not to follow it. The transcript of the sentencing hearing in 

this case clearly indicates that the judge knew that he had 

discretion with respect to the issue of ordering sentences to run 

consecutively or concurrently. The judge on the record sentenced 

consecutively and reiterated his intent to sentence consecutively. 

The record here is amply developed to allow appellate review and 

contains no evidence to support the argument that the district 

court believed he had no discretion regarding this sentence. 

A letter from appellant to his counsel was attached to 

appellant's brief on appeal. In the letter, defendant suggests 

that his counsel raise several issues that are not listed or 

argued in appellant's appellate brief. Because these issues were 

not raised in the appellant's brief, the government did not have 

an opportunity to address them. AFFIRMED. Motion to Withdraw by 

appellant's counsel is hereby granted. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3344 Document: 010110276712 Date Filed: 08/11/1992 Page: 2