Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    United States v. Edmonson, 10th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding an appeal of the denial of a motion to vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court declined to address two new issues raised on appeal that were not presented to the district court in the original § 2255 motion. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for the reasons stated in the district court's memorandum and order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Edmonson, 10th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views3 pages
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding an appeal of the denial of a motion to vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court declined to address two new issues raised on appeal that were not presented to the district court in the original § 2255 motion. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for the reasons stated in the district court's memorandum and order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-01-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-3130

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding an appeal of the denial of a motion to vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court declined to address two new issues raised on appeal that were not presented to the district court in the original § 2255 motion. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for the reasons stated in the district court's memorandum and order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    11 views3 pages

    United States v. Edmonson, 10th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding an appeal of the denial of a motion to vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court declined to address two new issues raised on appeal that were not presented to the district court in the original § 2255 motion. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for the reasons stated in the district court's memorandum and order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    JAN 29 1997

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    MITCHEAL EDMONSON,

    No. 96-3130
    (D.C. No. CIV-95-3310-SAC)
    (D. Kan.)

    Defendant-Appellant.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

    Before PORFILIO, BALDOCK, and HENRY, 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.

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

    Defendant Mitcheal Edmonson, appearing pro se, appeals the district


    courts order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2241, construed as a
    motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. He claims that he
    was denied a fair trial because a codefendant was tried in absentia. On appeal,
    defendant raises two additional issues not included in his 2255 motion: (1) his
    conviction for conspiracy was invalidated when the codefendants conviction was
    reversed, and (2) the trial court unfairly admitted fingerprint evidence. We
    decline to address those issues because they were not presented to the district
    court. See United States v. Cook, 997 F.2d 1312, 1316 (10th Cir. 1993)
    (arguments not raised in 2255 motion to district court deemed waived).
    The provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (Apr. 24, 1996), requiring a 2255
    motion to be filed within one year after conviction and mandating that the movant
    obtain a certificate of appealability, do not apply in this case because the notice of
    appeal was filed before the Acts effective date. United States v. Lopez, 100 F.3d
    113, 116 (10th Cir. 1996). When reviewing the denial of a 2255 motion, we
    review the district courts legal rulings de novo, and its findings of fact for clear
    error. United States v. Cox, 83 F.3d 336, 338 (10th Cir. 1996).
    We have carefully reviewed the district court record and the materials
    submitted by the parties. Defendants motion to supplement the record with
    -2-

    additional legal authority is granted; however, the legal authority cited is


    inapposite because there, the two defendants were granted separate trials on the
    ground that their defenses were so antagonistic as to be almost mutually
    exclusive. We affirm the judgment of the district court for substantially the
    reasons stated in the March 29, 1996 memorandum and order.
    The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
    is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

    Entered for the Court

    John C. Porfilio
    Circuit Judge

    -3-

    You might also like