Court Opinion

ID: 988136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 22:48:33.707734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:38:34.419001
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                   No. 95-6283
VERNON A. COLLINS, a/k/a Bey
Brother,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge.
(CR-87-338-HAR, CA-92-2442-HAR)

Submitted: December 14, 1995

Decided: January 9, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Vernon A. Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a district court order denying his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (1988) motion. We affirm.

Appellant's § 2255 motion raised five claims, three of which were
waived for his failure to bring them on direct appeal when Appellant
failed to show cause and prejudice for the failure. Cf. United States
v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982). Thus, the district court properly
denied the waived claims.

Appellant's claim that his counsel labored under a conflict of inter-
est because an informant testifying against him was also testifying
against his counsel in a separate investigation is meritless. If anything,
such testimony against the attorney by the informant would give
counsel an independent and personal motive to discredit the informa-
tion in the prosecution against Appellant. The district court properly
denied this claim; it fails on its factual allegations.

Appellant's final claim, that counsel failed timely to move for a
hearing on the basis for a search warrant under Franks v. Delaware,
438 U.S. 154 (1978), is also meritless. First, counsel moved for a
Franks hearing on the day he received information purporting to
establish that one of the informants used in establishing a basis for a
search warrant had lied under pressure from authorities. Thus, counsel
acted in a competent manner. Second, even had counsel erred in not
quickly acting, the record reveals that the search warrant affidavit was
supported by information from five other informants regarding Appel-
lant's drug activity; the warrant would have been supported even if
the "lying" informant's testimony had been excised. Id. at 172. Thus,
a Franks hearing would not have helped Appellant, and any error by
counsel would not have prejudiced him. This claim of ineffective
assistance is baseless. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 694
(1984).

                     2
Appellant also claims on appeal that the district court improperly
failed to give him a chance to respond to the Government's response
to the § 2255 motion. The district court was not required to do so.
Rule 4(b), Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings. Further, the district
court's swift action in denying the motion is no basis for Appellant's
claim that the court was biased and should have recused itself.

Therefore, we affirm the district court order. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres-
ented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3