Donald Ray Channel v. William S. Price, Warden of the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility Gale A. Norton, Attorney General of Colorado

43 F.3d 1482, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 39750, 1994 WL 708315
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedDecember 21, 1994
Docket93-1227
StatusPublished

This text of 43 F.3d 1482 (Donald Ray Channel v. William S. Price, Warden of the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility Gale A. Norton, Attorney General of Colorado) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Donald Ray Channel v. William S. Price, Warden of the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility Gale A. Norton, Attorney General of Colorado, 43 F.3d 1482, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 39750, 1994 WL 708315 (10th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

43 F.3d 1482

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Donald Ray CHANNEL, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
William S. PRICE, Warden of the Arkansas Valley Correctional
Facility; Gale A. Norton, Attorney General of
Colorado, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 93-1227.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 21, 1994.

Before BRORBY and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and SAM,** District Judge.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT1

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner appeals the district court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. He argues that the district court erred in determining his 1980 guilty pleas were entered knowingly and voluntarily.

Upon examination of the briefs and record on appeal, we conclude the district court correctly determined the pleas were entered knowingly and voluntarily. Accordingly, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's recommendation filed December 1, 1992, which was adopted by the district court on May 20, 1993.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

**

Honorable David Sam, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Utah, sitting by designation

1

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 the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 F.3d 1482, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 39750, 1994 WL 708315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-ray-channel-v-william-s-price-warden-of-the-ca10-1994.