United States v. Sullivan ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                 United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 27, 2007
    July
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 05-30530
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    Plaintiff–Appellee
    v.
    MARVIN K SULLIVAN
    Defendant–Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 6:04-CV-1087
    USDC No. 6:01-CR-60049
    Before KING, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Marvin K. Sullivan, federal prisoner # 11003-035, appeals the denial of his
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion in which he challenged his conviction and sentence for
    making and subscribing a false tax return.
    Sullivan argues that Booker should be applied to his case retroactively and
    that it would be a miscarriage of justice not to apply Booker. Booker does not
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
    should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
    circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    No. 05-30530
    apply retroactively to cases on initial collateral review. United States v. Gentry,
    
    432 F.3d 600
    , 604 (5th Cir. 2005). Further, Booker is not a ground for filing a
    successive § 2255 motion. In re Elwood, 
    408 F.3d 211
    , 213 (5th Cir. 2005).
    Sullivan’s argument that his conviction is not final is without merit. His
    conviction became final after the expiration of the direct appellate process. See
    Gentry, 
    432 F.3d at
    604 n.2.
    Sullivan also contends that he was denied the opportunity to call an
    Assistant United States Attorney as a witness in connection with his argument
    that the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to file a motion
    under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. Sullivan failed to challenge the plea agreement on
    direct appeal and was thus precluded from raising the claim in a § 2255 motion.
    See United States v. Lopez, 
    248 F.3d 427
    , 433 (5th Cir. 2001). The Government
    invoked the procedural bar in the district court. See United States v. Drobny,
    
    955 F.2d 990
    , 995 (5th Cir. 1992). Therefore, the district court did not err in
    denying Sullivan’s request to present testimony on this issue.
    Sullivan argues again before this court that the BOP changes regarding
    placement of prisoners in community confinement centers violates due process
    and the Ex Post Facto Clause. Because Sullivan previously raised this issue on
    direct appeal, it should not be considered in a § 2255 motion. See United States
    v. Kalish, 
    780 F.2d 506
    , 508 (5th Cir. 1986). The district court did not err in
    denying this claim. To the extent that Sullivan attacks the applicability of the
    BOP policies to him, the argument is unavailing because it is not properly raised
    in a § 2255 motion. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 
    211 F.3d 876
    , 877 (5th Cir. 2000).
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-30530

Judges: King, Stewart, Owen

Filed Date: 7/27/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/18/2024