801 F.2d 395 (4th Cir. 1986), 86-7055, U.S. v. Sullivan
|Citation:||801 F.2d 395|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joseph E.L. SULLIVAN, Appellant.|
|Case Date:||September 12, 1986|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Submitted June 19, 1986.
Joseph E.L. Sullivan, appellant pro se.
Elsie L. Munsell, United States Attorney, for appellee.
Before RUSSELL and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Joseph E. L. Sullivan, a federal inmate, appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing his petition for post conviction relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Sullivan had originally been charged in a three-count indictment with aggravated bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), possession of a firearm, and use of a firearm. On November 12, 1976, Sullivan pled guilty to the lesser degree of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The government dismissed the remainder of Count I and Counts II and 111. Sullivan was sentenced to a term of 20 years imprisonment.
In his petition Sullivan contends that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because (1) his counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a judgment of acquittal at his guilty plea hearing; and (2) the district court breached its statutory duty by failing to designate in the sentence a minimum term at the expiration of which he would be eligible for parole, and for not stating whether the sentencing was pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4205 or § 4208. Both of these contentions are without merit and we affirm the judgment below on the reasoning of the district court. Sullivan v. United States, Cr. No. 76-233-A, C/A No. 85 1304-AM (E.D.Va., November 19, 1985).
Sullivan also challenges certain actions taken by the United States Parole Commission and challenges the accuracy of certain information concerning his prior convictions which the parole commission has allegedly relied upon. [*] These allegations do not challenge the imposition of Sullivan's sentence, nor do they call in question the constitutional validity of his conviction. Instead these allegations are directed to the execution of the sentence by the United States Parole...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP