Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Raheem Muhammad, AKA Ronald Lamar Gore
Citations: 116 F.3d 1489; 1997 WL 353021; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 22116Docket: 96-3248
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; June 26, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
Unpublished opinions may now be cited if they hold persuasive value on a material issue, provided a copy is attached or furnished to the court and parties. Raheem Muhammad appealed a denial of his Motion for Modification of Sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, claiming the sentencing court incorrectly calculated his criminal history points, resulting in an improper sentencing range. The district court determined it lacked jurisdiction under § 3582 to correct the sentence because Muhammad's claim did not meet the specific grounds for correction. Additionally, when treated as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Muhammad was denied relief due to his failure to raise the issue on direct appeal and his inability to show cause or prejudice. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's jurisdiction ruling and declined to grant a certificate of appealability, citing that Muhammad did not demonstrate a substantial showing of a constitutional right denial. His failure to raise the issue on direct appeal barred his § 2255 motion unless he could prove cause and actual prejudice, which he did not. Muhammad contends that the sentencing court incorrectly treated two prior offenses, a robbery and a forgery, as separate, assigning three criminal history points each, instead of considering them related and awarding a total of three points. The basis for his argument is that both offenses were consolidated for sentencing. However, he was arrested for the robbery on August 17, 1981, and for the forgery on October 28, 1981. According to Section 4A1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, prior sentences are deemed unrelated if separated by an intervening arrest. Since Muhammad’s forgery conviction followed his robbery conviction by an intervening arrest, the offenses cannot be classified as related under the guidelines. Consequently, the district court's handling of Muhammad's claim does not warrant further proceedings, leading this court to deny him a certificate of appealability and dismiss his appeal. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is affirmed regarding the 18 U.S.C. 3582 appeal, and the court similarly dismisses the appeal related to the 28 U.S.C. 2255 denial without granting a certificate of appealability. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under specific legal doctrines, and citation of such orders and judgments is generally discouraged, though permissible under certain conditions.