Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05193/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05193-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

FIL - .J 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE.Alt§iit.ed States Co~:c c?f Appealt •_r,,,,,th C:-r,:u1t 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

PETER J . MCMAHON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

MAR 19 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER. 

Clerk 

No. 92-5193 

(D. C. No. 92-C-20-E) 

(N. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. McMahon, a federal prisoner and a prose litigant appeals 

the denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shal l not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36 . 3. 

Appellate Case: 92-5193 Document: 010110191194 Date Filed: 03/19/1993 Page: 1 
Some background information is necessary. Mr. McMahon was 

originally convicted of possession of a controlled drug in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) and sentenced to eight months 

imprisonment, twelve months of supervised release, and a $50 

special assessment . Mr. McMahon appealed this conviction and we 

affirmed in an unpublished order and judgment. No. 90-5166. Mr. 

McMahon was next convicted of Escape from Confinement in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 751 and we affirmed this conviction in an 

unpublished order and judgment. Nos. 90-5167 and 9 0-5243. Mr. 

McMahon also appealed his pretrial detention and we affirmed in an 

unpublished order and judgment. No. 90-5197 . Mr. McMahon has 

served both of these sentences of imprisonment; however, he was 

next convicted of violating the terms of his supervised release 

and again sentenced to imprisonment. Mr. McMahon appealed this 

conviction in case No. 92-5117, and we vacated the judgment of the 

district court in an unpublished order and judgment. 

Mr. McMahon filed three separate motions concerning his first 

conviction (possession of a controlled drug) and it is the denial 

of these motions which Mr. McMahon is now appealing. The first 

motion was filed pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 asserting prior 

felony convictions used to enhance this sentence were 

constitutionally invalid. The second was a motion under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 wherein Mr. McMahon asserted: (1) vindictive prosecution; 

(2 ) perjury by a government witness at a suppression hearing; (3) 

an affidavit supporting a search warrant was untruthful; (4) a 

government witness violated the knock and announce requirements in 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-5193 Document: 010110191194 Date Filed: 03/19/1993 Page: 2 
the execution of a search warrant; (5) ineffective assistance of 

counsel due to his attorney's failure to investigate suppression 

issues; (6 ) denial of equal protection because of his pretrial 

detention; ( 7) the special assessment was excessive; ( 8 ) 

additional conditions of supervised release were imposed by 

probation officers rather than by the district court; and (9 ) 

statements by the prosecutor affected his placement while in 

prison. Mr. McMahon filed his first amended § 2255 motion 

asserting improper prosecutorial conduct and raised the same issue 

set forth in his Rule 35 motion. Mr. McMahon then filed his 

second amended§ 2255 motion again raising the issue of the 

excessive special assessment. 

The district court, no doubt wearying of the barrage of 

motions, entered an order denying all relief without explanation. 

The district court also ordered Mr. McMahon to file no additional 

pleadings without prior court approval. 1 Mr. McMahon responded by 

filing a request for a written opinion and his notice of appeal to 

this court. 

Mr. McMahon phrases the issue to be decided by this court as 

follows: "Whether the allegations in the§ 2255 motion would 

entitle the Appellant to collateral relief, and if the District 

Court abused its discretion by not holding an evidentiary 

hearing." 

1 We note Mr. McMahon did not appeal this portion of the district 

court's order. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-5193 Document: 010110191194 Date Filed: 03/19/1993 Page: 3 
Mr. McMahon's claim of vindictive prosecution was previously 

adjudicated by this court in No. 90-5166, where we held "the 

bringing of this action was not vindictive." Mr. McMahon is 

therefore precluded from again raising this issue. Mr. McMahon 

asserts his first claim of vindictive prosecution was based upon 

selective prosecution while his present claim is based upon the 

referral of his case to a federal forum "based upon retaliatory 

motivations by a certain city police officer." The case law of 

this Circuit holds the selection of forum falls within the ambit 

of prosecutorial discretion. United States v. Morehead, 959 F.2d 

1489, 1499 (10th Cir. 1992). Mr. McMahon's claim of vindictive 

prosecution must fail regardless of how phrased. 

A § 2255 motion cannot be used to test the legality of 

matters that should have been raised on appeal. United States v. 

Khan, 835 F.2d 749, 743 (10th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 

1222 (1988). This principle of law precludes Mr. McMahon from now 

raising his claims of perjury by a government witness at the 

suppression hearing (the witness testified the search warrant was 

served during the day and Mr. McMahon believes it was served at 

night); the affidavit was untruthful (the witness testified it was 

tailor-made while Mr. McMahon asserts it is well known that all 

affidavits are boilerplate emanating from a computer); violation 

of the federal knock and announce statute; improper pretrial 

detention; invalid prior convictions used to enhance his sentence; 

and excessive special assessment. Mr. McMahon either knew or 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-5193 Document: 010110191194 Date Filed: 03/19/1993 Page: 4 
should have known of these alleged illegalities at the time of his 

direct appeal. Mr . McMahon can overcome this only by showing 

cause external to the defense and prejudice. United States v. 

Frady, 456 U.S. 153, 167 (1982). Mr. McMahon has failed to meet 

his burden. 

Mr. McMahon next asserts that his probation officer imposed 

additional conditions on his supervised release. Mr . McMahon 

failed to inform the district court of the specifics or how this 

prejudiced him. Mr . McMahon has failed to persuade us that any 

violation in this regard has constitutional significance. 

Mr. McMahon, without providing the necessary details, asserts 

statements of the prosecutor somehow affected the conditions of 

his placement in prison. Such a claim is not cognizable in a 

§ 2255 action and we will not now consider it. 

Finally, Mr. McMahon asserted ineffective assistance of 

counsel based upon the fact his attorney failed to interview a 

witness prior to the suppression hearing in order to develop Mr. 

McMahon's claim of a violation of the knock and announce statute. 

Mr. McMahon fails to inform us as to the testimony of this witness 

and how it would have been different with a prehearing interview. 

Mr . McMahon has failed to carry his initial burden under 

Strickland v . Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 

-5 -

-- - ---

Appellate Case: 92-5193 Document: 010110191194 Date Filed: 03/19/1993 Page: 5 
Various other assertions of Mr. McMahon, such as the claim 

that prior invalid convictions were used to enhance his sentence, 

do not warrant further discussion as they lack a basis in fact. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

- 6 -

Appellate Case: 92-5193 Document: 010110191194 Date Filed: 03/19/1993 Page: 6