Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06333/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06333-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steve Alan Daniels
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. No. 91-6333 

F I .L J.:..i LJ 

United States Court of Apr,~~b Tr-it', 1 •-:-ui: 

MAY O G 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerl,: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(W.D. Okla. No. CIV-91-1632-A) 

STEVE ALAN DANIELS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, Circuit Judge, BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and 

EBEL, Circuit Judge. 

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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

In 1988, a jury convicted the appellant, Steve Alan Daniels, 

for his role in a heroin ring in Oklahoma. The United States 

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma sentenced him 

to twenty-one years imprisonment. This Court affirmed his 

conviction and sentence in United States v. Ware, 897 F.2d 1538 

* 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: 91-6333 Document: 010110247635 Date Filed: 05/06/1992 Page: 1
(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 2630 (1990). In 1991, 

Daniels filed a motion pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2255 to correct his 

sentence computation. The district court denied his motion, and 

Daniels appeals. We affirm the decision of the district court. 

On appeal, Daniels alleges that (1) the district court 

erroneously calculated the quantity of drugs attributable to him 

for sentencing purposes; (2) the district court should have 

reduced his base offense level under Sentencing Guideline§ 3Bl.2 

because he was a minor participant in the conspiracy; and (3) his 

Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to ineffective 

assistance of counsel. 

First, Daniels argues that the district court incorrectly 

calculated the amount of heroin for which he should be held 

culpable pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, he 

contends that the court should not have held him responsible for 

drug transactions that occurred prior to the time he joined the 

conspiracy. We deny relief because Daniels failed to raise this 

objection at the time of sentencing and he does not meet the 

standard set forth in United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982). 

Under Frady, "to obtain collateral relief based on trial 

errors to which no contemporaneous objection was made, a convicted 

defendant must show both (1) 'cause' excusing his double 

procedural default, and (2) 'actual prejudice' resulting from the 

errors of which he complains." Id. at 166-67. Daniels has shown 

neither cause nor prejudice. In fact, the district court in its 

order made it clear that his sentence would have been the same 

even if he had objected properly: 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 91-6333 Document: 010110247635 Date Filed: 05/06/1992 Page: 2
Even if counsel had directly attacked the base offense 

level of 36, this Court would have overruled such an 

objection. Defendant entered what he knew to be an 

ongoing, expansive conspiracy. While defendant may not 

have known the exact amount of drugs transferred prior 

to his entering the conspiracy, he certainly would have 

known that a large quantity of heroin had been 

distributed. This Court's view is that when a person 

wilfully joins an ongoing conspiracy, the conduct of 

which was obvious to him, he has assumed the 

consequences of that conduct. 

Order, R., Vol. I, Doc. 1141, at 5. 

Second, Daniels contends that the district court should have 

reduced his base offense level under Sentencing Guideline S 3Bl.2 

because he was a minor participant in the conspiracy. Daniels did 

not raise this claim at his sentencing hearing. Accordingly, as 

discussed supra, he may not obtain collateral relief on this 

ground unless he demonstrates "cause" and "actual prejudice." See 

Frady, 456 U.S. at 167-68. Nor did he raise this issue on direct 

appeal. "The failure of a defendant to present an issue on direct 

appeal bars the defendant from raising such an issue in a§ 2255 

motion to vacate a sentence unless good cause is shown." United 

States v. Khan, 835 F.2d 749, 753-54 (10th Cir. 1987), cert. 

denied, 487 U.S. 1222 (1988). Daniels has shown neither cause nor 

prejudice. 

Finally, Daniels complains that his attorney failed to make a 

timely objection to the court's calculation of his base offense 

level both at sentencing and on direct appeal. Thus, he argues, 

his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to 

ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree. 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), sets forth a 

two-prong test for determining whe the r a defendant has been denied 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 91-6333 Document: 010110247635 Date Filed: 05/06/1992 Page: 3
effective assistance of counsel. "First, the defendant must show 

that ... counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not 

functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth 

Amendment." Id. at 687. "Second, the defendant must show that 

the deficient performance prejudiced the defense . This requires 

showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the 

defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable." Id. 

"The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability 

that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the 

proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694. 

Daniels has failed to show the requisite prejudice, as there 

is no indication that the result of the proceeding would have been 

different if his counsel had not committed the alleged errors. In 

fact, as discussed supra, the district court stated to the 

contrary in its order: "Even if counsel had directly attacked the 

base offense level of 36, this Court would have overruled such an 

objection." Order, R., Vol. I, Doc. 1141, at 5. 

For the foregoing reasons, the district court's decision is 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 91-6333 Document: 010110247635 Date Filed: 05/06/1992 Page: 4