Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

David v. United States, 93-1701 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 93-1701 Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 31, 1994
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: March 31, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 93-1701 GEORGE W. DAVID, Petitioner, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, Appellee. We therefore affirm the judgment ______ of the district court.
USCA1 Opinion









March 31, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 93-1701

GEORGE W. DAVID,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent, Appellee.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________

____________________

Before

Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

George W. David on brief pro se.
_______________
A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, and John P. Pucci,
___________________ ______________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.


____________________


____________________























Per Curiam. Appellant George W. David appeals from
__________

the dismissal of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255. In

this motion, appellant argues that a portion of his sentence

should be vacated. However, appellant did not object to the

sentence at the time it was imposed nor did he pursue a

direct appeal.

Where a criminal defendant does not object below

and does not appeal his sentence, he is barred form raising

his challenge to the sentence in a 2255 motion unless he

can establish cause and prejudice as required by United
______

States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 (1982). See Suveges v.
______ _____ ___ _______

United States, 7 F.3d 6, 10 (1st Cir. 1993) (failure of
_____________

2255 movant to object at trial to enhanced term of supervised

release and to appeal sentence "in the first instance,"

constituted procedural default; movant therefore must show

cause and prejudice to obtain collateral relief); Ford v.
____

United States, 983 F.2d 897, 898-99 (8th Cir. 1993) (per
_____________

curiam) (defendant was procedurally barred, absent a showing

of cause and prejudice, from raising sentencing issues in a

2255 motion which he had failed to pursue on direct appeal).

Appellant, having failed to show cause, is barred from

raising the issue now.

In any event, we have carefully reviewed the record

and the briefs of the parties and find no plain error in the

district court's decision. We therefore affirm the judgment
______



















of the district court.



















































-3-







Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer