Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06117/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06117-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mirkazem Chavushpour
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

F L TI D 

United Stat~ Cour:t of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

MIRKAZEM CHAVUSHPOUR, also known as ) 

Joe Tarah, also known as Joe Pour, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FEB 2 7 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6117 

(D.C. No. CR-88-23-P) 

( W. D . Okla . ) 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Defendant appeals from the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion challenging his conviction and sentence on one count of 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 

cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(l), 846, to which he pled guilty on 

* 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: 89-6117 Document: 010110028908 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 1 
• 

April 8, 1988. Since the underlying criminal activity occurred 

prior to November 1, 1987, defendant was sentenced to a term of 

six years in accordance with the law prevailing prior to the new 

sentencing guidelines, i.e., 21 u.s.c. § 841(b)(l)(C). See United 

States v. Martinez-Zayas, 857 F.2d 122, 127 (3d Cir. 1988). 

Defendant asserted the following grounds in support of the 

motion under review: 

1. Ineffective assistance of counsel; 

2. Falsification of records through district court's 

amendment of its judgment and commitment in the case; 

3. Breach of plea agreement by government's provision of 

prosecution version of offense for inclusion in 

presentence 

response to 

and 

report and by government's unfavorable 

defendant's Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion; 

4. Illegal imposition of sentence contrary to sentencing 

guidelines and based on false information. 

We agree with the district court that grounds two through 

four are meritless. In light of the deficiency of these 

substantive contentions, we also concur in the district court's 

rejection of defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 

The order of the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Defendant's motion for 

abatement of this appeal for pursuit of his newly raised conflict 

of interest allegation is DENIED. Any subsequent assertion of a 

claim in this regard will be subject to the district court's 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6117 Document: 010110028908 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 2 
independent, threshold determination of successiveness under 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 Rule 9(b). 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6117 Document: 010110028908 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 3