2255 Not Proper Means to Challenge Restitution Order; Ringing Cell Phone Did Not Improperly Disrupt Sentencing

U.S. v. Satterfield, 2007 WL 603050 (2/28/07)(unpub'd) - A prisoner cannot challenge a restitution order through 2255 because he is not claiming the right to be released.

U.S. v. Doe, 2007 WL 603058 (2/28/07)(unpub'd) - As the d.ct. began to explain whether a variance was appropriate, a cell phone rang in the courtroom. Right after the d.ct. ordered the person with the phone out of the courtroom, the d.ct. simply imposed sentence. The 10th affirms the sentence on the grounds that the d.ct. understood its authority to vary based on the defendant's cooperation, despite the lack of a government 5K1.1 motion. The interruption of the d.ct.'s explanation regarding the requested variance did not matter.