70 F.3d 1272 (6th Cir. 1995), 95-3245, Moore v. U.S.

Docket Nº:95-3245.
Citation:70 F.3d 1272
Party Name:Jonathan M. MOORE Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Case Date:November 17, 1995
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Page 1272

70 F.3d 1272 (6th Cir. 1995)

Jonathan M. MOORE Sr., Petitioner-Appellant,


UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 95-3245.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

November 17, 1995

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

N.D.Ohio, No. 94-02045; Sam H. Bell, District Judge.



Before: ENGEL, MILBURN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.


Jonathan M. Moore Sr., a pro se federal prisoner, appeals a district court judgment denying his motion to vacate sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

In 1994, Moore pleaded guilty to three counts of bank robbery, three counts of carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, failure to appear and escape. He was sentenced to a total of 295 months of imprisonment. Moore did not appeal his convictions or sentences.

In his motion to vacate, Moore challenged his convictions for bank robbery and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. He argued that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Upon review, a magistrate judge filed a report recommending that the district court deny the motion as without merit. Over Moore's objections, the district court adopted the recommendation and denied the motion. Moore has filed a timely appeal, reasserting his same claim.

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly denied the motion to vacate. In order to obtain relief under § 2255 on the basis of a constitutional error, the record must reflect an error of constitutional magnitude which had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the proceedings. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1722 (1993); United States v. Ross, 40 F.3d 144, 146 (7th Cir.1994) (per curiam). In order to obtain relief on the basis of nonconstitutional error, the record must reflect a fundamental defect in the proceedings resulting in a complete miscarriage of justice or an error so egregious that it amounted to a violation of due process. See Reed v. Farley, 114 S.Ct. 2291, 2300 (1994)...

To continue reading