Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01174/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01174-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank A. Sanfilippo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL )_:i .. J 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United St.ates Cou!"~ of Appeal, Tenth Cii-.~utt 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

NOV 6 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

FRANK A. SANFILIPPO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 91-1174 

(D.C. No. 88-CR-359) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and SAFFELS,** Senior 

District Judge. 

**Honorable Dale E. Saffels, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

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, appearing pro se, appeals from the district 

court's denial of his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set 

* 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: 91-1174 Document: 010110145697 Date Filed: 11/06/1992 Page: 1 
aside the sentence imposed after his March 4, 1989, conviction on 

two counts of possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g) (1). We affirm. 

18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1) forbids the possession of firearms by 

persons who have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than 

one year imprisonment whose civil rights have not been restored. 

Defendant argues that his previous Colorado, New Mexico, and 

Oregon convictions cannot be used as predicate offenses to support 

a conviction under§ 922(g) (1) because his civil rights have since 

been restored by his state of residence, Colorado. The government 

argues, on the other hand, both that defendant has not and cannot 

show that his civil rights have been restored under the law of 

Colorado and that, having failed to raise this argument on direct 

appeal, defendant may not raise it on a§ 2255 motion. We agree 

with the government in this case. 

Defendant previously appealed his conviction to this court, 

which affirmed in an unpublished opinion, see United States v. San 

Filippo, No. 89-1367, slip op. (10th Cir. Sept. 12, 1990), cert. 

denied, 111 S. Ct. 1079 (1991). Defendant, who was represented by 

counsel on appeal, had the opportunity to raise the argument he 

now raises on his§ 2255 motion, but he did not. This allegation 

of error therefore cannot be raised by collateral attack unless 

good cause is shown. United States v. Frady. 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 

(1982); United States v. Khan, 835 F.2d 749, 753-54 (10th Cir. 

1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1222 (1988). Defendant has "failed 

to establish, or even allege, good cause for his failure" to raise 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1174 Document: 010110145697 Date Filed: 11/06/1992 Page: 2 
t 

this argument on his previous appeal, Khan, 835 F.2d at 754, and 

therefore this court will not review it. 

Defendant's motion to reconsider appointment of counsel is 

DENIED. The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1174 Document: 010110145697 Date Filed: 11/06/1992 Page: 3