F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 31 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 97-4073
(D.C. No. 96-CR-10-02-W)
CAPRIANO TOMAS TUM-PEREZ, (D. Utah)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , BARRETT , and TACHA , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Defendant Capriano Tomas Tum-Perez appeals the sentence imposed
pursuant to his entry of a guilty plea to the charge of distribution of a controlled
substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We affirm.
Defendant’s appeal is based on his contention that a prior conviction for
driving while under the influence should not have been considered when
computing his criminal history for this case because his guilty plea in the earlier
case was entered without the assistance of a certified interpreter. He also claims
the district court’s failure to resolve that objection to the presentence report
violated Rule 32(b)(6)(D) & (c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
“The district court’s factual findings at sentencing are reviewed for clear error,
while its interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines is a question of law reviewed
de novo.” United States v. Simpson , 94 F.3d 1373, 1380 (10th Cir. 1996).
The record reflects that defense counsel informed the district court that he
intended to try to have the earlier conviction set aside by the state court. He did
not challenge the fact of the prior conviction. He asked only that he be permitted
to seek relief in the event he was successful in having the prior conviction
dismissed.
Unless a collateral attack is based on the complete denial of counsel,
a district court sentencing a defendant based on criminal history calculations
under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4A1.1 cannot consider a collateral
-2-
attack on a prior conviction. See Simpson , 94 F.3d at 1381-82 (citing United
States v. Garcia , 42 F.3d 573, 581 (10th Cir. 1994)). In this case, defendant’s
criminal history was computed pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. He challenged his
prior conviction due to the absence of a certified interpreter, not the complete
absence of counsel. Therefore, the district court correctly declined to consider
defendant’s collateral attack on his prior conviction. Simpson has foreclosed
defendant’s argument that Rule 32(b)(6)(D) & (c)(1) required the district court to
resolve the merits of defendant’s collateral attack prior to imposing a sentence on
the federal charges. If defendant succeeds in his efforts to set aside the prior
conviction, he may apply to reopen any sentence enhanced by the prior
conviction. See Custis v. United States , 511 U.S. 485, 497 (1994) ; Garcia ,
42 F.3d at 581-82.
The government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah is
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-3-