United States v. Felipe Alamillo

Tenth Circuit

United States v. Felipe Alamillo

941 F.2d 1085, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 18211, 1991 WL 151523

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedAugust 13, 1991

Docket91-1129

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 941 F.2d 1085 (United States v. Felipe Alamillo) 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

United States v. Felipe Alamillo, 941 F.2d 1085, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 18211, 1991 WL 151523 (10th Cir. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

MOORE, 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. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Alamillo, 754 F.Supp. 827 (D.Colo.1990). Appellant, Felipe Alam-illo, contends the district court erred in not vacating his sentence because the sentence includes a provision for supervised release. We affirm.

Mr. Alamillo was convicted on three counts relating to the possession and distribution of marijuana and sentenced to concurrent thirty-three month terms. In addition, the district court imposed a three-year term of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583.

In his § 2255 motion in the district court, Mr. Alamillo argued supervised release violates the constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy; constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; violates his rights to free association, due process, and equal protection; and, is an impermissible “bill of at *1086 tainder.” In a supplemental pleading, Mr. Alamillo argued in the imposition of sentence the district court violated Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1). We agree with the district court’s disposition of those issues and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the court’s published order.

On appeal, Mr. Alamillo raises an argument not presented to the district court. He contends the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 is invalid because it violates the constitutional requirement of separation of powers. While we do not ordinarily consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, United States v. Orr, 864 F.2d 1505, 1508 (10th Cir.1988), we note the issue is without merit. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 412, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989).

AFFIRMED.

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

MOORE, 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. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Alamillo, 754 F.Supp. 827 (D.Colo.1990). Appellant, Felipe Alam-illo, contends the district court erred in not vacating his sentence because the sentence includes a provision for supervised release. We affirm.

Mr. Alamillo was convicted on three counts relating to the possession and distribution of marijuana and sentenced to concurrent thirty-three month terms. In addition, the district court imposed a three-year term of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583.

In his § 2255 motion in the district court, Mr. Alamillo argued supervised release violates the constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy; constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; violates his rights to free association, due process, and equal protection; and, is an impermissible “bill of at *1086 tainder.” In a supplemental pleading, Mr. Alamillo argued in the imposition of sentence the district court violated Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1). We agree with the district court’s disposition of those issues and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the court’s published order.

On appeal, Mr. Alamillo raises an argument not presented to the district court. He contends the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 is invalid because it violates the constitutional requirement of separation of powers. While we do not ordinarily consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, United States v. Orr, 864 F.2d 1505, 1508 (10th Cir.1988), we note the issue is without merit. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 412, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

941 F.2d 1085, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 18211, 1991 WL 151523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-felipe-alamillo-ca10-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack