The U.S. attorney's office is trying to get the federal court to impose "unlawfully cumulative" sentences in the Singer-Swapp case, according to a memorandum decision by U.S. District Chief Judge Bruce S. Jenkins.

In his 12-page decision, Jenkins clearly was responding to a request by U.S. Attorney Brent D. Ward that the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Denver, order the resentencing of Vickie Singer and Addam Swapp.Ward wants five more years added to the terms of both, who are among the defendants convicted in last January's bombing, standoff and shooting at Marion, Summit County.

As part of his sentencing of the Singer-Swapp defendants on a variety of charges, Jenkins declined to add any prison time for Addam Swapp and Vickie Singer for using a bomb in a crime of violence. Ward wrote in an appeal to the 10th Circuit court that this count carries a mandatory five-year term.

Among other crimes, both Swapp and Singer were convicted on the first two counts of the indictment. Count I charged that they damaged the Kamas LDS Stake Center on Jan. 16, 1988, by blowing it up. Count II was that they used a bomb in blowing it up.

"It seemed to this court at the time of sentencing, and it seems to the court now, that it is unlawfully cumulative that one should be punished for destroying a building through the use of a bomb (count one), and that one should be further punished for destroying the same building through the use of the same bomb (count two)," Jenkins wrote.

The judge aimed a barb at Ward when he implied that the indictment was not written as clearly as it should have been, if the prosecutors wanted defendants convicted on distinct offenses.

"Had the United States attorney charged in Count II, which he did not, that in carrying the bomb to the site where it was used, the defendants carried with them as well some other device (such as a rifle, for example), other than the material alleged in Count I, then the sentencing result could well be different.

"Neither the pleadings nor the proof in this instance supply that needed variation, that additional element, which to the court seems essential to justify the imposition of additional punishment."