Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 61 views

    United States v. Rogelio Castro, 56 F.3d 78, 10th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a habeas corpus petition filed by Rogelio Castro, an inmate at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary. The order affirms the district court's denial of Castro's petition, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and governmental interference with a defense witness. The appellate court agrees with the district court's thorough analysis provided in its order denying the petition for substantially the same reasons.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Rogelio Castro, 56 F.3d 78, 10th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    61 views2 pages
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a habeas corpus petition filed by Rogelio Castro, an inmate at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary. The order affirms the district court's denial of Castro's petition, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and governmental interference with a defense witness. The appellate court agrees with the district court's thorough analysis provided in its order denying the petition for substantially the same reasons.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-06-06 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 56 F.3d 78 Docket: 95-3020

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a habeas corpus petition filed by Rogelio Castro, an inmate at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary. The order affirms the district court's denial of Castro's petition, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and governmental interference with a defense witness. The appellate court agrees with the district court's thorough analysis provided in its order denying the petition for substantially the same reasons.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    61 views2 pages

    United States v. Rogelio Castro, 56 F.3d 78, 10th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a habeas corpus petition filed by Rogelio Castro, an inmate at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary. The order affirms the district court's denial of Castro's petition, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and governmental interference with a defense witness. The appellate court agrees with the district court's thorough analysis provided in its order denying the petition for substantially the same reasons.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    56 F.

    3d 78
    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.
    Rogelio CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 95-3020.
    (D.C. No. 92-3144)

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    June 6, 1995.

    Before MOORE, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT1


    1

    After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. This case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    Rogelio Castro (Castro), an inmate of the Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary,


    appearing in forma pauperis, appeals the district court's Memorandum and
    Order of December 1, 1994, denying his 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition for a writ of
    habeas corpus.

    On January 25, 1991, Castro was convicted, following a jury trial, of forcibly
    assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating or interference with a
    prison officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. 111. Castro was sentenced to 33 month
    incarceration to run consecutively with the sentence he was serving at the time
    of the assault. This court affirmed his conviction in United States v. Castro, 965
    F.2d 279 (Table) (10th Cir.1992).

    On April 13, 1992, Castro filed this 2255 motion in the district court alleging:
    (1) ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel's failure to call two
    witnesses, failure to object to the peremptory challenge of Ms. Lopez or
    develop the record for a Batson2 argument, failure to take photographs of his
    darkened cell, failure to object to the government's alleged interference with his
    efforts to call a defense witness, and failure to "condition" the jury during voir
    dire concerning inmate testimony; and (2) denial of due process based on
    governmental interference with a defense witness.

    On appeal, Castro renews his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based


    on trial counsel's failure to call two defense witnesses and denial of due process
    based on governmental interference with a defense witness.

    After an evidentiary hearing, Castro's contentions were addressed and decided


    adversely to him by the district court in a thorough Memorandum and Order.
    Our review of the record shows that the district court did not err in denying
    Castro's petition for writ of habeas corpus.

    We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's
    Memorandum and Order of December 1, 1994, denying Castro's motion for
    writ of habeas corpus.

    AFFIRMED.

    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 filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

    Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), forbids the prosecutor from


    challenging potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption
    that members of that race as a group will be unable to impartially consider the
    State's case

    You might also like