United States v. Harrison

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-7579
ARTHUR FRANK HARRISON, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge.
(CR-92-68, CA-96-72-BO)
Submitted: August 14, 1997
Decided: August 25, 1997
Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Arthur Frank Harrison, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Charles Johnson,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Frank Harrison, convicted by a jury of numerous firearms
offenses, now appeals the district court's denial of his motion filed
under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), in which Harri-
son raised several claims relating to his entrapment defense, and
claimed ineffective assistance of his privately retained trial counsel.
We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find
no reversible error.
First, the claims Harrison raises which relate to his entrapment
defense have been previously raised on direct appeal and decided
adversely to Harrison. Accordingly, the district court properly dis-
missed those claims. See Boeckenhaupt v. United States, 537 F.2d
1182, 1183 (4th Cir. 1976).
In addition, this Court reviewed the evidence of Harrison's guilt in
his direct appeal, and found it to be overwhelming. United States v.
Harrison, 37 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 1994). Given this, we find that Harri-
son has not demonstrated prejudice required by Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 691-94 (1984), and therefore cannot
obtain relief from his conviction based on ineffective assistance of
counsel.
Finally, Harrison's claim that the district court erred by failing to
hold an evidentiary hearing is without merit. In many instances it is
appropriate for the sentencing judge to dispose of a§ 2255 motion
based on his memory, Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 n.4
(1977), however, the district court in this case went a step further by
expanding the record to include affidavits. See Raines v. United
States, 423 F.2d 526, 529-30 (4th Cir. 1970). We find that a hearing
was not necessary because the record conclusively shows that Harri-
son was not entitled to relief. See Fontaine v. United States, 411 U.S.
213, 215 (1973).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2