Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05170/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05170-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joe L. Blanton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

✓ 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth circuit 

NOV 1 41990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 89-5170 

) ( D. C. Nos. 87-CR-118-02 

JOE L. BLANTON, ) & 

) 88-CR-061-04) 

) (N. D. Okla.) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, 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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant appeals from an order of the district court denying 

his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 to correct the 

sentences imposed in both of his criminal cases. 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-5170 Document: 010110047959 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 1 
✓ 

In 1987, defendant was indicted in the Northern District of 

Oklahoma on seven counts of conspiracy to defraud the United 

States, failing to file currency transaction reports (CTRs), and 

making false statements in CTRs in violation of 18 u.s.c. §§ 371, 

1001, 1002 and 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313, 5322. D.C. No. 87-CR-118-02. 

(Tulsa case.) In 1988, defendant was indicted in Texas on charges 

of conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 

u.s.c. § 371 and making false statements in violation of 18 u.s.c. 

§§ 3, 1001, 1002 and 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313, 5322. That case was 

transferred to Oklahoma pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 20. D.C. No. 

88-CR-061-04. (Dallas case.) 

In the Tulsa case, defendant pled guilty to one count of 

conspiracy and one count of making a false statement in a CTR. He 

was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on count one and three 

years on count two to be served consecutively. He was also 

ordered to make restitution to the Internal Revenue Service in the 

amount of $7,280.00, to pay one half the cost of prosecution in 

the amount of $3,264.66, and to pay a special assessment of $50.00 

on each count. 

In the Dallas case, defendant pled guilty to one count of 

conspiracy to defraud the United States and was sentenced under 

the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(Sentencing 

Guidelines), to sixty months' imprisonment and three years' 

supervised release to be served concurrently with count two in the 

Tulsa case. He was also ordered to pay a fine of $12,500.00 and a 

special assessment of $50.00. Defendant took no appeal from 

either conviction. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-5170 Document: 010110047959 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 2 
... 

Defendant did file a motion to correct sentence pursuant to 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 in which he alleged that the special 

assessment imposed in both convictions, see 18 u.s.c. § 3013, 

violated the origination clause of the Constitution. Defendant 

also alleged that the restitution order should be set aside 

because it was not imposed in accordance with the requirements of 

the "Victim and Witness Protection Act" and that the district 

court failed to make specific factual findings regarding his 

ability to pay. 

The district court held that although the Ninth Circuit in 

United States v. Munoz-Flores, 863 F.2d 654 (9th Cir. 1988) had 

held the special assessment illegal, "[t]here is no indication 

that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals would follow the holding 

of the Ninth Circuit, ... therefore this Court declines to do 

SO• II 

1 District Court Order of September 19, 1989, p. 1. 

On appeal, which defendant denominates as being taken from 

the denial of a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, 

defendant argues he was denied due process at sentencing because 

the court based its judgment on inaccurate information contained 

in his presentence investigation report. He also argues that the 

probation office selected the wrong guideline and base offense 

level and, therefore, he was sentenced illegally. The district 

court noted that defendant at sentencing had contested neither the 

1 The Supreme Court has since reversed the Ninth Circuit. See 

United States v. Munoz-Flores, 110 S. Ct. 1964 (1990); see also 

United States v. King, 891 F.2d 780 (10th Cir. 1989). 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-5170 Document: 010110047959 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 3 
amount of restitution nor the court's determination that he was 

able to pay the fine imposed and, therefore, no error had 

occurred. 

We will not consider the issues defendant raises on appeal 

because he did not raise them first to the district court. See 

Baker v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 788 F.2d 650, 663 (10th Cir. 

1986). Further, issues raised in the district court but not 

briefed on appeal are considered waived. United States v. 

Jenkins, 904 F.2d 549, 554 n.3 (10th Cir. 1990)(citing United 

Transp. Union v. Dole, 797 F.2d 823, 827 (10th Cir. 1986)); 

Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, 896 F.2d 1228, 1231 (10th Cir. 

1990). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-5170 Document: 010110047959 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 4