Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/56/65/624811/
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 08:04:15
Document Index: 278811992

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2113', '§ 924', '§ 2113', '§ 924', '§ 2113', '§ 924', '§ 924']

John Robert Stevens, Petitioner-appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent-appellee, 56 F.3d 65 (6th Cir. 1995) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Sixth Circuit › 1995 › John Robert Stevens, Petitioner-appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent-appellee
John Robert Stevens, Petitioner-appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent-appellee, 56 F.3d 65 (6th Cir. 1995)
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 56 F.3d 65 (6th Cir. 1995) May 30, 1995
John Robert Stevens, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals a district court judgment denying his motion to vacate sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
In April 1993, Stevens pleaded guilty to bank robbery and carrying a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and was sentenced to 97 months of imprisonment. In exchange for Stevens's guilty plea, the government dismissed the remaining counts of the indictment. A panel of this court dismissed Stevens's appeal as untimely. United States v. Stevens, Case No. 93-6098 (6th Cir. Oct. 18, 1993).
In his motion to vacate sentence, Stevens argued that: 1) the government denied him the assistance of counsel; 2) his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) violate the Double Jeopardy Clause; 3) the United States lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him; 4) the district court improperly sentenced him; and 5) counsel rendered ineffective assistance.
The record does not reflect that the government violated Stevens's Sixth Amendment right to counsel because nothing in the record indicates that Stevens had been charged with any specific offense at the time of the questioning. See Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 430-31 (1986); United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 188 (1984). Moreover, in light of Stevens's guilty plea, any violation constitutes harmless error. See Melchior v. Jago, 723 F.2d 486, 493 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 952 (1984). Stevens did not receive multiple punishments in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, see Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 (1977) (citing North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969)), because a defendant may be sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 for use of a dangerous weapon during a bank robbery which may then be enhanced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). See United States v. Harris, 832 F.2d 88, 90-91 (7th Cir. 1987) (per curiam); United States v. Shavers, 820 F.2d 1375, 1377-78 (4th Cir. 1987). Stevens's claim that the United States lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him is without merit as the indictment sufficiently indicated that the bank Stevens robbed was a federally insured bank and that Stevens had violated 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). See United States v. Sitton, 968 F.2d 947, 953 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 478 (1992) and 113 S. Ct. 1306 (1993). Stevens's sentencing guidelines claim is without merit because he has simply misinterpreted Sec. 2B3.1(b) (1), as there is no requirement that the theft exceed $10,000 before the sentencing court may increase the defendant's offense level by two points. USSG Sec. 2B3.1(b) (1). Finally, Stevens's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit because the underlying claims are unsubstantial. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
Accordingly, we hereby deny the appointment of counsel and the motion for transcript, grant Stevens pauper status for the limited purpose of this review, and affirm the district court's judgment. Rule 9(b) (3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.