Tannenbaum v. U.S., No. 97-4441

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore GODBOLD, HILL and FAY; PER CURIAM
Citation148 F.3d 1262
Decision Date04 August 1998
Docket NumberNo. 97-4441
Parties11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1689 Eric Mark TANNENBAUM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. Non-Argument Calendar.

Page 1262

148 F.3d 1262
11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1689
Eric Mark TANNENBAUM, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 97-4441
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 4, 1998.

Page 1263

Eric Mark Tannenbaum, Tallahassee, FL, pro se.

William A. Keefer, U.S. Atty., Dawn Bowen, Evelio J. Yera, Adalberto Jordan, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, FL, for Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before GODBOLD, HILL and FAY, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Mark Tannenbaum appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence for the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (possession of a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense).

On appeal, Tannenbaum argues that when he pled guilty to carrying and using a firearm in violation of § 924, his plea was based solely on the law before the clarification in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995)(requiring proof of active employment of the firearm in the commission of the offense to establish "use" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)). He also argues that because of the Supreme Court's recent holding in Bousley v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998), even though his claim was procedurally defaulted by not challenging the validity of his guilty plea on appeal, if he can establish "actual innocence," he may still be entitled to a hearing on its merits.

In a § 2255 proceeding, this Court reviews factual findings for clear error while it reviews legal issues de novo. Martin v. United States, 81 F.3d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir.1996); Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1491 (11th Cir.1991). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed. Fernandez, 941 F.2d at 1491. But, issues not raised below are normally deemed waived. See generally United States v. Everett, 129 F.3d 1222, 1225 (11th Cir.1997). "[T]he voluntariness and intelligence of a guilty plea can be attacked on collateral review only if first challenged on direct review." Bousley, 118 S.Ct. at 1609.

We have reviewed the applicable statutes and caselaw, examined the relevant portions of the record, and considered the briefs of the parties; we find no reversible error.

Because Bailey discussed only the "use" prong of § 924(c), it did not change the analysis to be applied to determine whether evidence is sufficient to convict a defendant for "carrying" a firearm under § 924(c). See United States v. Farris, 77 F.3d 391, 395 & n. 4 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S....

To continue reading

Request your trial
2041 practice notes
  • Grills v. Philip Morris Usa, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-15-UA-DNF.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • August 4, 2009
    ...drafted by attorneys and are therefore liberally construed," Whitehurst, 306 Fed. Appx. at 447 n. 2 (citing Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)), a defendant's pro se status in civil litigation "generally will not excuse mistakes he makes regarding......
  • Brown v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Grp., Case No. 3:18-cv-01148-J-32MCR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • August 5, 2020
    ...than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (per curiam); see also Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (stating that pleadings submitted by pro se parties are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings draft......
  • Beepot v. J.P. Morgan Chase Nat'l Corporate Servs., Inc., Case No. 3:10–cv–423–J–34PDB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • October 30, 2014
    ...a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed,” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir.1998). Although the Beepots are now pursuing their claims pro se, their former counsel drafted and filed the Amended Complai......
  • Evans v. Ga. Reg'l Hosp., No. 15-15234
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • March 10, 2017
    ...a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed." Tannenbaum v. United States , 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). Moreover, we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, regardless of whether that ground was relied on or c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2012 cases
  • Grills v. Philip Morris Usa, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-15-UA-DNF.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • August 4, 2009
    ...drafted by attorneys and are therefore liberally construed," Whitehurst, 306 Fed. Appx. at 447 n. 2 (citing Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)), a defendant's pro se status in civil litigation "generally will not excuse mistakes he makes regarding......
  • Brown v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Grp., Case No. 3:18-cv-01148-J-32MCR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • August 5, 2020
    ...than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (per curiam); see also Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (stating that pleadings submitted by pro se parties are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings draft......
  • Beepot v. J.P. Morgan Chase Nat'l Corporate Servs., Inc., Case No. 3:10–cv–423–J–34PDB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • October 30, 2014
    ...a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed,” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir.1998). Although the Beepots are now pursuing their claims pro se, their former counsel drafted and filed the Amended Complai......
  • Evans v. Ga. Reg'l Hosp., No. 15-15234
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • March 10, 2017
    ...a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed." Tannenbaum v. United States , 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). Moreover, we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, regardless of whether that ground was relied on or c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT