Filed: Jan. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7039 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTIAN O. KANU, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-226-HAR, CA-94-2592-HAR) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christian O.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7039 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTIAN O. KANU, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-226-HAR, CA-94-2592-HAR) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christian O. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7039
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHRISTIAN O. KANU,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge.
(CR-91-226-HAR, CA-94-2592-HAR)
Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996
Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christian O. Kanu, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his
28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (1988) motion. He alleges that the district court
committed sentencing errors and that he received ineffective assis-
tance of counsel. However, because his claims of sentencing error
could have been raised on appeal, but were not, he may not now
assert them. See Stone v. Powell,
428 U.S. 465, 477 n.10 (1976)
(nonconstitutional claims not raised on appeal may not be asserted
in a collateral proceeding); United States v. Ward,
55 F.3d 412,
413 (8th Cir. 1995) (an allegation of error in the application or
computation of the sentencing guidelines is not constitutional). We
also find that Appellant has failed to establish that his attor-
ney's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced thereby.
Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 693 (1984). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.
AFFIRMED
2