Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07011/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07011-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TEN'l'H CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

AUG O 3 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEP.. 

Clerk . 

No. 92-7011 

JOHN THOMAS STUART, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(D.C. No. CIV-91-407-S) 

(E . D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 . 9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner John Thomas Stuart, Jr. appeals the denial of his 

petition under 28 u.s.c. § 2255, which challenges his conviction 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-7011 Document: 010110259035 Date Filed: 08/03/1992 Page: 1
for kidnapping (18 u.s.c. §§ 2 and 1201) and interstate 

transportation of a stolen motor vehicle (18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 

2312). Mr. Stuart, who is presently in the custody of the 

Oklahoma Department of Corrections in Lexington, Oklahoma, faces a 

consecutive 

convictions. 

fifteen-year federal sentence on the above 

In the present S 2255 motion, Mr. Stuart asserts he was 

denied effective assistance of counsel by virtue of trial 

counsel's failure to pursue a direct appeal. Notably, he asserted 

this same claim in a previous§ 2255 proceeding, and such claim 

was discussed and rejected by the district court in a memorandum 

opinion dated December 23, 1988. Nothing in the record indicates 

Mr. Stuart appealed the denial of his first S 2255 motion. 

Rather, Mr. Stuart filed this second § 2255 motion, asserting 

"newly discovered evidence" supports his claim. The district 

court denied Mr. Stuart's second motion by order dated January 24, 

1992. 

The law regarding dismissal of successive§ 2255 petitions is 

clear. Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings 

provides: 

A second or successive motion may be dismissed if the 

judge finds that it fails to allege new or different 

grounds for relief and the prior determination was on 

the merits or, if new and different grounds are alleged, 

the judge finds that the failure of the movant to assert 

those grounds in a prior motion constituted an abuse of 

the procedure governed by these rules. 

With regard to a successive claim, the peti tioner bears the burden 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-7011 Document: 010110259035 Date Filed: 08/03/1992 Page: 2
of showing that "'although the ground of the new application was 

determined against him on the merits on a prior application, the 

ends of justice would be served by a redetermination of the 

ground.'" Parks v. Reynolds, 958 F.2d 989, 994 (10th Cir. 1992) 

(quoting Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 (1963)), cert . 

denied, 112 S. Ct. 1310 (1992). 

The record makes clear that Mr. Stuart did, in fact, raise 

the same claim in his first§ 2255 motion as is raised in the 

present motion. Moreover, the district court indisputably 

rejected Mr. Stuart's claim on the merits the first time around. 

Nevertheless, Mr. Stuart has filed a second motion asserting 

"newly discovered evidence" the transcript of sentencing 

proceedings supports a redetermination of his claim as it 

demonstrates he requested but never received a direct appeal. 

To the contrary, we hold Mr. Stuart's petition fails to meet 

the "ends of justice" standard as set out in Parks. First, an 

excerpt from the trial/sentencing transcript does not constitute 

newly discovered evidence. Such information was available to Mr. 

Stuart at the time he filed his first petition. Second, Mr. 

Stuart has not shown how the lack of a direct appeal effectuated a 

fundamental miscarriage of justice in this case. The record is 

devoid of substantive allegations of trial court error. We 

therefore AFFIRM the district court's denial of Mr. Stuart's 

Motion pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or 

Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-7011 Document: 010110259035 Date Filed: 08/03/1992 Page: 3
Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-7011 Document: 010110259035 Date Filed: 08/03/1992 Page: 4