Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02195/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02195-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregorio Lopez-Villa
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United States 0Jurt of Appea-1s 

1'enth Ci ".'Cl!!t 

AUG - 7 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-2195 

vs. (D.C. No. Civ-88-48-JP) 

(D.N.M.) 

GREGORIO LOPEZ-VILLA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges. ** 

Defendant-appellant, Gregorio Lopez-Villa, was convicted of 

possessing cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 

u.s.c. § 84l(a)(l) and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. 

Foregoing a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence, 

Lopez-Villa instituted this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

asserting he had been denied effective assistance of counsel 

because his defense attorney has failed to file a motion to 

* 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 or establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** 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 therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 89-2195 Document: 010110039645 Date Filed: 08/07/1990 Page: 1 
suppress the fruits of an illegal search of his vehicle. The 

district court denied Lopez-Villa relief, finding that (1) his 

counsel filed a timely motion to suppress and (2) he voluntarily 

granted the arresting officers consent to search his vehicle. See 

rec. vol. I, docs. 60, 64 & 66. Lopez-Villa now appeals alleging 

the district court erred in (1) rejecting his ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim and (2) denying him a free transcript 

of his trial. 

In reviewing the district court's denial of relief in a 

§ 2255 action, we are bound by the facts as found by the district 

court unless clearly erroneous; however, our review of ultimate 

legal issues is plenary. United States v. Miller, No. 85-2334, 

slip op. at 6 (10th Cir. July 5, 1990). Applying this standard, 

we find no basis to Lopez-Villa's ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim. The record fully supports both the district 

court's historical findings, and ultimate conclusion that 

Lopez-Villa's counsel acted in accordance with the standards set 

forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-98 (1984) 

(conviction to be overturned only when counsel's defense "so 

undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial system that 

the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result"). 

Lopez-Villa's claim that he is entitled to a free transcript 

of his trial to search for error is likewise unavailing. 28 

u;s.c. § 753(f) provides for a free transcript for an indigent 

prisoner pursuing a§ 2255 action "if the trial judge or a circuit 

judge certifies that the suit or appeal is not frivolous and that 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2195 Document: 010110039645 Date Filed: 08/07/1990 Page: 2 
C 

\ 

• 

the transcript is needed to decide the issue presented . . .. 

See United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 320-29 (1976). 

this case, the district court properly declined to certify 

Lopez-Villa's request because his allegations are conclusory. 

Defendants who seek a transcript must allege more than 

" 

In 

conclusions. Jackson v. Turner, 442 F.2d 1303, 1305 (10th Cir. 

1971). "There is no statutory authority under 28 u.s.c. § 1915, 

28 U.S.C. § 753, or elsewhere, allowing the expenditure of 

government funds as an aid to impecunious persons exploring the 

possibility of post conviction remedies." Prince v. United 

States, 312 F.2d 252, 253 (10th Cir. 1962). 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2195 Document: 010110039645 Date Filed: 08/07/1990 Page: 3