United States v. Marty Wayne Matthews

65 F.3d 179, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 30744, 1995 WL 511142
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedAugust 30, 1995
Docket94-6413
StatusPublished

This text of 65 F.3d 179 (United States v. Marty Wayne Matthews) 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. Marty Wayne Matthews, 65 F.3d 179, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 30744, 1995 WL 511142 (10th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

65 F.3d 179

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument,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.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Marty Wayne MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 94-6413.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Aug. 30, 1995.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT1

Before TACHA, LOGAN and KELLY, Circuit Judges.2

KELLY, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-appellant Marty Matthews appeals the 57-month sentence imposed by the district court. Mr. Matthews contends that the district court erred by refusing to depart downward given his cooperation with the Government. The Government, however, never filed a U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 motion. Nonetheless, Mr. Matthews argues that the Government's sentencing memorandum, explaining Defendant's assistance, should be considered the functional equivalent of a 5K1.1 motion. This argument has been explicitly rejected by United States v. Brown, 912 F.2d 453, 454 (10th Cir.1990) and United States v. Kuntz, 908 F.2d 655, 656-58 (10th Cir.1990).

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. 151 F.R.D. 470 (10th Cir.1993)

2

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 therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument

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

Related

United States v. Robert Arno Kuntz
908 F.2d 655 (Tenth Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Anthony Wade Brown
912 F.2d 453 (Tenth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 F.3d 179, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 30744, 1995 WL 511142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-marty-wayne-matthews-ca10-1995.