Reginald Ivy v. United States ( 1996 )

___________
No. 96-1424
___________
Reginald Ivy, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
United States of America, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: November 7, 1996
Filed: November 25, 1996
___________
Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Reginald Ivy appeals the district court's1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. §
2255 motion. We affirm.
In March 1994, Ivy pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of
a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); he was sentenced to thirty
months imprisonment, to be served consecutively to a state sentence for
first-degree assault. Ivy did not appeal.
Ivy filed this section 2255 motion, asserting as grounds for
relief (1) his prosecution was unlawful; (2) defense counsel
supplied false information; and (3) the sentence imposed exceeded
1
The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
the maximum sentence authorized. The district court granted the
government's motion to dismiss and denied relief without an
evidentiary hearing, reasoning that Ivy's claims were procedurally
barred and could not be raised in a section 2255 motion absent a
showing of cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of
justice. Ivy appeals.
This court affirms the summary denial of a section 2255 motion
without an evidentiary hearing only if, upon a de novo review of
the record, the court is persuaded that the motion, files, and
records of the case conclusively show that the movant is not
entitled to relief. See Holloway v. United States, 960 F.2d 1348,
1351 (8th Cir. 1992).
We agree Ivy is barred from raising his sentencing and
statutory claims in a section 2255 motion. See Ramey v. United
States, 8 F.3d 1313, 1314 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (section
2255 not available to correct errors which could have been raised
at trial or on direct appeal, absent showing of cause and actual
prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice); see also United
States v. Ward, 55 F.3d 412, 413 (8th Cir. 1995) (all arguments--
including constitutional and jurisdictional ones--should be raised
at trial or on direct appeal to the fullest extent possible;
sentencing issue not constitutional or jurisdictional); Anderson v.
United States, 25 F.3d 704, 706 (8th Cir. 1994) (claim that
statutory elements of crime not met, not constitutional or
jurisdictional).
While a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is
cognizable in a section 2255 motion, see United States v. Magee, 19
F.3d 417, 420 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 343 (1994),
Ivy's claim--which fails to allege how counsel was ineffective--is
too vague and conclusory to merit relief. See United States v.
-2-
Robinson, 64 F.3d 403, 405 (8th Cir. 1995) (movant's allegations
of attorney coercion too vague and conclusory to warrant
-3-
evidentiary hearing).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-4-