Court Opinion

ID: 999139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:21:19.791675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:24:42.929836
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                              No. 99-6494

VANNIS L. LIVERMAN, a/k/a Vann,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CR-95-151-6, CA-98-1171-2)

Submitted: June 8, 1999

Decided: July 9, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Vannis L. Liverman, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Vannis L. Liverman seeks to appeal the district court's order deny-
ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.
1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion
and find no reversible error. We note that Liverman fully and fairly
litigated on direct appeal whether his plea was entered knowingly and
voluntarily and, thus, this issue is not subject to collateral review. See
Boeckenhaupt v. United States, 537 F.2d 1182, 1183 (4th Cir. 1976).
We further note that review of Appellant's nonconstitutional claims
relating to the application of the Sentencing Guidelines were waived
because they were not raised on direct appeal and these alleged errors
would not constitute a fundamental defect inherently resulting in a
miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178,
185 (1979).

We have also construed Liverman's sentencing claims as ineffec-
tive assistance of counsel claims. After reviewing Liverman's allega-
tions and the record, we find that Liverman failed to demonstrate
deficient representation and prejudice on any of his ineffective assis-
tance of counsel claims such that the "result of the proceeding was
fundamentally unfair or unreliable." Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S.
364, 369 (1993). We reviewed all other issues raised and find no error
by the district court. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-
bility and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED

                     2