United States v. Franks, 10th Cir. (1998)
United States v. Franks, 10th Cir. (1998)
DEC 8 1998
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 98-7001
(D.C. No. 97-CV-260-S)
(E.D. Okla.)
Petitioner-Appellant.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Petitioner Kyle Edmond Franks appeals from an order of the district court
partially granting his motion for
subsequent resentencing, and the courts denial of the remainder of his habeas
claims. We granted a certificate of appealability on appeal and ordered briefing
from the respondent. We affirm.
In 1991, Mr. Franks was found guilty of violations of 18 U.S.C.
924(c)(1), and 21 U.S.C.
922(g),
924(c)(1) charge to
run consecutively to the 300 month sentence. These convictions were affirmed
on direct appeal.
sentencing. Mr. Franks claimed that, at trial, counsel had failed to object to the
introduction of his prior felony convictions. He asserted counsel was ineffective
at sentencing because he had failed to inform the court that the government had
not shown the type of methamphetamine involved and had failed to object to the
amount of drugs set forth in the presentence report. Mr. Franks also alleged he
had been sentenced in violation of Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) .
-2-
The district court agreed that Mr. Franks was entitled to relief on the
Bailey issue. The court vacated the
resentenced.
ineffective assistance of
resentencing. Mr. Franks also, under the general rubric of ineffective assistance
of counsel, alleges that, at trial, the government submitted insufficient evidence
to prove the 922(g) charge and, at sentencing, (1) the court abused its
discretion by not holding a hearing as mandated by 21 U.S.C. 851(a)(2); (2) the
government failed to prove whether D-methamphetamine or L-methamphetamine
was involved; and (3) the government incorrectly determined the amount of drugs
involved. Lastly, Mr. Franks asserts the court erred by imposing a two-level
increase for a leadership role and his due process rights were violated because he
was prosecuted by the federal government rather than the state government.
-3-
Mr. Franks contends he was denied due process because he was not present
at resentencing and the district court did not appoint counsel to represent him
In its order partially granting habeas, the district court vacated the 924(c)
charge and ordered that Mr. Franks be resentenced. The probation office
submitted an amended presentence report. Thereafter, the court reimposed the
original 300 month sentence on the remaining charges.
Neither defendant s presence nor counsel is required at resentencing when
the court is merely correcting the
collateral attack.
defendant , because
446, 450 (10th Cir. 1972) (defendants presence is not required when sentence is
reduced). No error occurred at resentencing.
4B1.1.
Section 4B1.1, by its terms, does not require identification of the type of
controlled substance involved. Therefore, counsel was not ineffective for failing
to insist that the government show the type of methamphetamine involved.
Mr. Franks also asserts that counsel should have insisted the government
correctly determine the amount of drugs involved in the offense because he
maintains that the witnesses against him lied as to the amounts involved. As
Mr. Franks is once again attacking witness credibility in setting forth this claim,
we can find no error or resulting
Mr. Franks contends counsel should have advised the court that his prior
convictions could not be used for career offender enhancement because they had
not been prosecuted by means of an indictment. He also alleges the court did not
Section 4B1.1 provides that a d efendant is a career offender if he is at
least eighteen years old at the time he committed the offense for which he is
being sentenced; the current offense is a felony amounting to a crime of violence
or a controlled substance offense, and he has at least two prior felony convictions
of crimes of violence or controlled substances.
-6-
informed Mr. Franks he could not later attack his sentence on the basis that the
prior convictions were invalid if he did not challenge the convictions prior to
sentencing. See 851(b). Mr. Franks discussed the courts statement with
counsel. The court followed the procedural requirements of
therefore, Mr. Franks cannot now attack the enhancement.
841(b) and,
See, e.g., United
States v. Ruiz-Castro , 92 F.3d 1519, 1536 (10th Cir. 1996) ( defendant may only
851(b) procedures) .
Mr. Franks raises the rest of his issues for the first time in his appellate
brief. We decline to consider those issues because they were not presented to the
district court.
See United States v. Cook , 997 F.2d 1312, 1316 (10th Cir. 1993)
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Circuit Judge
-8-