Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Olden, 10th Cir. (2017)
United States v. Olden, 10th Cir. (2017)
United States v. Olden, 10th Cir. (2017)
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 17-5008
(D.C. No. 4:04-CR-00071-TCK-1)
GERALD LAMONT OLDEN, (N.D. Okla.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
admitted that he had committed a crime. The government alleges that the
defendant admitted a crime; the defendant denies doing so, claiming that
he admitted only certain allegations that did not constitute crimes. The
district court agreed with the government, and we affirm under the plain-
error standard.
*
We conclude that oral argument would not materially help us to
decide this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
Thus, we are deciding the appeal based on the briefs.
This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
But our order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value under
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
The district court found the commission of a crime based on the
guideline range would have applied only if the defendant had violated the
but insists that he did not admit the commission of a crime involving a
contends that the district court committed plain error by finding that he
Any alleged error would not have been obvious. The defendant
acknowledges that he failed to object in district court and that this failure
available only if the district court had committed an obvious error. United
States v. Pablo, 696 F.3d 1280, 1290 (10th Cir. 2012). Applying this
1
The district court found nine other violations. But those violations
would not have triggered a guideline range of 21 to 27 months.
2
standard, we conclude that if the district court had erred, the error would
547 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2008). The totality of circumstances could
1001(a).
vehicles, and telephone number. At the hearing, the district court asked
to waive the right to have the hearing today and stipulate to the
allegations. R., vol. II at 34. With this statement, the court asked the
defendant if he understood what his attorney had just said. The defendant
answered that he did. Id. To this point, the admission appeared airtight.
But the defendant relies on what happened next. The court recounted
the allegations and asked the defendant if they were true. Id. at 35. He
answered: Some of it is, Your Honor. Id. He explained that the issue
with his telephone was a misunderstanding, but admitted that he had driven
2
We need not decide whether an error took place.
3
his cousins vehicle and had not told his probation officer that he was in
only [s]ome of the allegations were true. See id. But the defendant then
admitted that he had driven his cousins vehicle and had not told his
probation officer that he was moving, which were two of the things he was
his false statements, he did not deny making them with the knowledge that
In light of this exchange, the district court did not commit an obvious
under 1001. Thus, the district court did not commit plain error by finding
a crime.
Affirmed.
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge