U.S. v. Ulland, 80-1609
| Decision Date | 30 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1609,80-1609 |
| Citation | 638 F.2d 1150 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kenneth L. ULLAND, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Bruce Aarestad, Fargo, N. D., for appellant Kenneth L. Ulland.
James R. Britton, U. S. Atty., Lynn E. Crooks, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fargo, N. D., for appellee.
Before HEANEY, ROSS and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
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 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Murphy, 89-1700
...not kept are issues that first must be presented to the district court and are not cognizable on direct appeal. United States v. Ulland, 638 F.2d 1150 (8th Cir.1981) (per curiam); see also Mims, 440 F.2d Murphy contends that the District Court violated Rule 11(f) of the Federal Rules of Cri......
-
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals v. Thournout, 94-1599
...sentence under 28 U.S.C. Section(s) 2255. E.g., United States v. Murphy, 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. Ulland, 638 F.2d 1150, 1151 (8th Cir. 1981) (per curiam). We think the issue of breach of the plea agreement is cognizable on direct appeal in the present case. Becau......
-
U.S. v. Van Buren, 86-1159
...with Rule 11, even if a claim of noncompliance was never presented to the trial court. Id. at 957. See also United States v. Ulland, 638 F.2d 1150 (8th Cir.1981); United States v. Mims, 440 F.2d 643 (8th Defendant's first claim on appeal is that the District Court did not establish a factua......
-
U.S. v. McCray, 87-2630
...not cognizable on direct appeal because he failed to first file a motion for relief with the district court. See United States v. Ulland, 638 F.2d 1150, 1151 (8th Cir.1981). We disagree. Whether or not this requirement is to be strictly interpreted, see United States v. Benson, 836 F.2d 113......