Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06273/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06273-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John O. Green
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

--. 

F l .L -~ R ~-,b 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL1.1nited StareB Court o L pp" .. i:S' Tc-:11.h c·,. •UI 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT M /\'f 1 Z. 1992 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JOHN O. GREEN, also known as John 0. 

Hornung, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk 

) No. 91-6273 

) (D.C. No. CIV-91-322-R) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, 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 case is therefore ordered 

In 1986, Defendant, a former attorney, was convicted on one 

count of conspiracy to defraud the United States by concealing 

taxable income of a client, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623, and 

acquitted on several related charges. This court affirmed his 

* 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-6273 Document: 010110247696 Date Filed: 05/12/1992 Page: 1
conviction in United States v. Hornung, 848 F.2d 1040 (10th Cir. 

1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1069 (1989). Thereafter, Defendant 

filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 

28 u.s.c. § 2255, asserting three grounds for relief: 

(1) prosecutorial misconduct in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 

373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny; (2) failure of the trial 

judge to recuse where circumstances compelled his 

disqualification; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel in 

knowingly neglecting to seek disqualification of the trial judge. 

The district court denied the motion, and Defendant now appeals 

that ruling. We affirm. 

The district court conducted an extensive and particularized 

examination of the alleged Brady violations. 

Order filed July 11, 1991 (Order), at 15-27. 

See District Court 

Upon deferential 

review of its factual findings and de novo review of its legal 

analysis, see United States v. Buchanan, 891 F.2d 1436, 1440 (10th 

Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1088 (1990), we conclude that 

the district court properly denied relief on this ground. In 

light of the overwhelming evidence of Defendant's guilt already 

recognized by this court on his direct appeal, see Hornung, 848 

F.2d at 1045, the matters identified by Defendant as Brady 

violations are insufficient to undermine the validity of his 

conviction. See Boschen v. United States, 845 F.2d 921, 922 (11th 

Cir. 1988); see also United States v. Blair, 886 F.2d 477, 480 

(1st Cir. 1989); cf. Carter v. Rafferty, 826 F.2d 1299, 1308-09 

(3d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1011 (1988). 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6273 Document: 010110247696 Date Filed: 05/12/1992 Page: 2
"'[M)ost matters relating to judicial disqualification [do] 

not rise to a constitutional level.'" Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. 

Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 820 (1986)(quoting FTC v. Cement Inst., 333 

U.S. 683, 702 (1948)). This point is especially significant in 

the present context because absent jurisdictional deficiencies or 

specific constitutional concerns, § 2255 may be invoked only to 

redress "'a fundamental defect which inherently results in a 

complete miscarriage of justice.'" United States v. Addonizio, 

442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979)(quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 

424, 428 (1962)). Violations of statutory or rule-governed 

criminal procedures generally will not sustain a motion for§ 2255 

relief. See, e.g., United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 

783-84 (1979)(violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea procedures}; 

United States v. Prichard, 875 F.2d 789, 790 (10th Cir. 1989}(lack 

of written waiver of jury trial, as required by Fed . R. Crim. P. 

23(a}}; United States v. Chavez, 862 F.2d 1436, 1437-38 (10th Cir. 

1988)(failure to preserve record of court proceedings, in 

violation of 28 u.s.c. § 753(b)), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1099 

(1989); Ornelas v. United States, 840 F.2d 890, 892 (11th Cir. 

1988)(absence of express waiver of indictment, as required by Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 7(b)). Thus, a mere technical violation of the 

recusal statutes, 28 u.s.c. §§ 144, 455, will not sustain a 

collateral attack on a conviction. See United States v. Couch, 

896 F.2d 78, 81 (5th Cir. 1990); Hardy v. United States, 878 F.2d 

94, 98 (2d Cir. 1989). With these principles in mind, we hold 

that Defendant's allegations of disqualification, discussed at 

length by the district court, see Order at 3-12, 30-32, do not 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6273 Document: 010110247696 Date Filed: 05/12/1992 Page: 3
establish the sort of direct, personal, and substantial adverse 

interest necessary to warrant post-judgment relief. See Couch, 

896 F.2d at 81-82 (applying standard derived from Aetna, 475 U.S. 

at 821-22, 824-25); cf. Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition 

Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 850, 862-70 (1988)(relief from civil judgment 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for § 455 violation granted where 

trial judge had substantial financial interest in outcome, and 

aggrieved party's delay in asserting objection was attributable to 

judge's failure to disclose interest). 

With respect to Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel 

claim, we review the district court's factual findings for clear 

error and its legal conclusion de novo. United States v. Owens, 

882 F.2d 1493, 1501-02 n.16 (10th Cir. 1989). As we have already 

rejected on the merits any fundamental or constitutional dimension 

of the underlying recusal issue, Defendant's ineffective 

assistance claim encompasses only counsel's election not to test 

Defendant's statutory rights under§§ 144, 455. See Owens, 882 

F.2d at 1500 (citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 

(1986), for principle that counsel cannot be deemed 

constitutionally ineffective for failing to pursue nonmeritorious 

issue). 

Defendant must show that counsel's performance was 

constitutionally inadequate and that counsel's inadequacy 

prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 

687 (1984). As for the first element, there exists a strong 

presumption that the challenged actions of counsel reflect 

professionally reasonable decisions of trial strategy. Id. at 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-6273 Document: 010110247696 Date Filed: 05/12/1992 Page: 4
689. We consider that presumption controlling here. See, e.g., 

Holloway v. United States, No. 90-2648, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 4236 

at *23 (8th Cir. March 13, 1992)(presumption in favor of 

professional competence controlling where counsel assessed known 

facts regarding disqualification in light of personal knowledge of 

judge and concluded recusal motion would not be appropriate). 

Furthermore, because the adverse bench rulings cited by Defendant 

all relate to the guilt phase of the criminal proceeding, see 

Brief of Appellant at 42, the overwhelming evidence of guilt 

presented by the prosecution negates the prejudice element of 

Defendant's ineffective assistance claim. See generally United 

States v. Earley, 746 F.2d 412, 419 (8th Cir. 1984){ineffective 

assistance claim undercut by overwhelming nature of state's case 

against defendant), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1010 (1985). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-6273 Document: 010110247696 Date Filed: 05/12/1992 Page: 5