Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05121/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05121-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deborah L. Stone
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DEBORAH L. STONE, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

FILED 

United States Courc of Appeals 

Tenth Ciro:iit 

FEB 2 8 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee. 

No. 89-5121 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

(86-CR-03-E) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

In the middle of a trial charging the appellant with 

conspiracy to commit mail fraud and violation of the equity 

skimming statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1709-2, the appellant changed her 

plea from not guilty to guilty of the offenses of conspiracy to 

commit mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371, and violating the mail fraud 

statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The other charges against her were 

* 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: 89-5121 Document: 01019964557 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 1 
dismissed, including all charges of violation of the equity 

skimming statute, 12 u.s.c. § 1709-2. On direct appeal to this 

court, appellant's challenge to the validity of the plea was 

rejected. United States v. Deborah L. Stone, No. 86-2518 (10th 

Cir. Jan. 12, 1988). 1 

Appellant now brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255. Appellant adopts the issues and arguments raised in her 

co-defendant Rhonda Arterburn's appeal of the denial of her§ 2255 

motion. 2 Holding that the asserted§ 2255 issues had been waived 

by appellant's guilty plea or addressed or waived by previous 

appeals, the district court denied appellant's motion as to all 

issues except as to the adequacy of trial counsel. The district 

court ordered a evidentiary hearing on this matter which is now 

scheduled for March 1990. Appellant's appeal, taken before that 

date, is premature as to this issue. 

Because the judgment of the district court is not final as to 

all issues we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See 

Gray v. Swenson, 430 F.2d 9, 11 (8th Cir. 1970); Stewart v. 

Bishop, 403 F.2d 674 (8th Cir. 1968); 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

Therefore, the appeal is DISMISSED. Th e mand a t e s h all i ssue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

1 Appellant and a co-defendant, Michael F. Stone also appealed 

the district court's striking their Rule 35(a) motion. 10th Cir. 

File Nos. 86-2796, 86-2797. The appeals were dismissed pursuant 

to Rule 42.1 for failure to file timely briefs. 

2 In United States v. Arterburn, No. 88-2334 (10th Cir. October 

31 , 1989), this court affirmed the denial of Arterburn's motion 

pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2255. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-5121 Document: 01019964557 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 2