U.S. v. Vaughn, 91-1589
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Citation | 955 F.2d 367 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1589,91-1589 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Ray VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant. Conference Calendar. |
| Decision Date | 11 March 1992 |
Page 367
v.
Billy Ray VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant.
Fifth Circuit.
Billy Ray Vaughn, pro se.
Alfred E. Moreton, III, Robert O. Whitwell, U.S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Glen H. Davidson, Judge.
Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Page 368
PER CURIAM:
Vaughn argues to this Court only that the district court incorrectly increased his sentence under the Guidelines 1) because he discharged a firearm and 2) for obstruction of justice.
Relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries that could not have been raised on direct appeal and would, if condoned, result in a complete miscarriage of justice. U.S. v. Capua, 656 F.2d 1033, 1037 (5th Cir.1981). Nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not, may not be asserted in a collateral proceeding. Id. Vaughn was sentenced within the Guideline range and did not appeal the sentence. A district court's technical application of the Guidelines does not give rise to a constitutional issue. U.S. v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 50 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2032, 114 L.Ed.2d 117 (1991).
Vaughn's claim is not cognizable under the limited scope of relief available under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 because it is not of constitutional dimension, could have been raised on direct appeal, and there has been no showing as to why it was not.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castrellon v. United States, EP-22-CV-80-KC
...of attempts to import drugs should apply to attempts made wholly outside of our borders.”). [5] But see United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992) (“A district court's technical application of the Guidelines does not give rise to a constitutional issue.”). --------- ...
-
Ricks v. United States, A-10-CA-352-LY
...Motion to Vacate at p. 58. Such non-constitutional claims may not be asserted in a § 2255 proceeding. See United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992) ("Nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not, may not be asserted in a collateral pro......
-
Flores-Diaz v. U.S., Civil Action No. L-05-cv-177.
...application of the Guidelines does not give rise to a constitutional issue cognizable under § 2255." (citing United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir.1992))). Accordingly, the Court will not consider Flores's attack on the Court's application of the sentencing Flores's second sen......
-
U.S. v. Smith, CRIM.A.2:93CR162-11.
...technical application of the Sentencing Guidelines does not necessarily give rise to a constitutional issue. United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir.1992). The sentence imposed in this matter is well within the statutory limit and is therefore insulated from section 2255 review.......