U.S. v. Palmer, 95-3204
| Decision Date | 10 September 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-3204,95-3204 |
| Citation | 1996 WL 525586,97 F.3d 593 |
| Parties | NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael PALMER, a/k/a James, a/k/a Knot, a/k/a Tony, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Before: HENDERSON, ROGERS, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C.Cir.Rule 36(b). It is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the district court's order filed December 5, 1995, be affirmed for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum.
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 41.
Although Palmer's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is untimely under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, his request for a new trial can be treated as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The evidence Palmer relies on for his claim that he had no connection to the guns bought by Raymond Morant is not newly discovered. See Thompson v. United States, 188 F.2d 652, 653 (D.C.Cir.1951). The Morant affidavit expressly states that the information therein was made available to the defense prior to trial and that Morant, in fact, did discuss his possible testimony with Palmer's trial counsel. Moreover, to the extent Palmer raises a claim of prosecutorial overreaching, he has not shown cause for his procedural default in failing to raise this claim earlier. See United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 (1982). Nor has he shown that "failure to consider his claim will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice." See United States v. McKie, 73 F.3d 1149, 1154 (D.C.Cir.1996) (quoting Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991)). With respect to the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, the court need not decide whether trial counsel's performance was deficient because Palmer has not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Palmer
...over the last twenty years, Palmer has pressed numerous claims seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see United States v. Palmer, 97 F.3d 593 (Table) (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam); United States v. Palmer , 296 F.3d 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ; United States v. Palmer , 902 F. Supp. 2d 1, 4, 10......
-
United States v. Palmer
...Circuit affirmed the denial, expressly construing Palmer's “Motion for New Trial” as a Motion to Vacate under § 2255. United States v. Palmer, 97 F.3d 593 (D.C.Cir.1996). On April 22, 1996, the Federal Public Defender filed a Motion to Vacate Conviction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserti......
-
U.S. v. Palmer
...it would have rejected the motion. Id. at 10. In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the district court. See United States v. Palmer, 97 F.3d 593, 1996 WL 525586 (D.C.Cir. 1996). We initially noted that, "[a]lthough Palmer's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is untim......
-
United States v. Palmer
...Circuit affirmed the denial, expressly construing Palmer's "Motion for New Trial" as a Motion to Vacate under § 2255. United States v. Palmer, 97 F.3d 593 (D.C. Cir. 1996). On April 22, 1996, the Federal Public Defender filed a Motion to Vacate Conviction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asser......