United States v. Kenneth L. Ulland

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Kenneth L. Ulland

638 F.2d 1150, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20558

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 30, 1981

Docket80-1609

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 638 F.2d 1150 (United States v. Kenneth L. Ulland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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. Kenneth L. Ulland, 638 F.2d 1150, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20558 (8th Cir. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his conviction, on plea of guilty, of two counts of willful failure to file an income-tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. He claims that *1151 his plea of guilty was based on a plea agreement under which the United States promised, inter alia, that it would recommend to the District Court 1 that sentencing in this case be delayed until final disposition, including appeal, of another criminal prosecution against defendant, United States v. Kenneth L. Ulland, now pending in this Court as No. 80-1610. The Government says it made no such promise.

We have concluded that the appeal must be dismissed under 8th Cir. R. 9(a). Whether a plea bargain was not kept, like the claim that a guilty plea was involuntary, is an issue not cognizable on direct appeal. See United States v. Mims, 440 F.2d 643 (8th Cir. 1971) (per curiam). The issue must first be presented to the District Court, by motion to withdraw the plea of guilty under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d), by motion to reduce or correct the sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35, or by petition to set aside the conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The appeal is dismissed.

1

. The Hon. Paul Benson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his conviction, on plea of guilty, of two counts of willful failure to file an income-tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. He claims that *1151 his plea of guilty was based on a plea agreement under which the United States promised, inter alia, that it would recommend to the District Court 1 that sentencing in this case be delayed until final disposition, including appeal, of another criminal prosecution against defendant, United States v. Kenneth L. Ulland, now pending in this Court as No. 80-1610. The Government says it made no such promise.

We have concluded that the appeal must be dismissed under 8th Cir. R. 9(a). Whether a plea bargain was not kept, like the claim that a guilty plea was involuntary, is an issue not cognizable on direct appeal. See United States v. Mims, 440 F.2d 643 (8th Cir. 1971) (per curiam). The issue must first be presented to the District Court, by motion to withdraw the plea of guilty under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d), by motion to reduce or correct the sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35, or by petition to set aside the conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The appeal is dismissed.

1

. The Hon. Paul Benson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

638 F.2d 1150, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kenneth-l-ulland-ca8-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack