F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 10 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
vs. No. 99-8097
(D.C. No. 97-CV-99)
CHARLES JOHN MCCARTY, (D. Wyo.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. **
Mr. Charles J. McCarty, an inmate appearing pro se, seeks to appeal from
the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition. Mr. McCarty was convicted
on five charges of federal firearms violations and was sentenced to 71 months
imprisonment. His sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. United States v.
McCarty, 82 F.3d 943 (10th Cir. 1996). The district court denied his habeas
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
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 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
petition.
Mr. McCarty raises two issues on appeal. First, he claims that the district
court erred in denying his request for an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective
assistance of counsel claim. “We review the district court's denial of an
evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion.” Johnson v. Gibson, 169 F.3d 1239,
1253 (10th Cir. 1999). Only under the most liberal of interpretations is it possible
to read Mr. McCarty’s habeas petition as raising an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim. See R. doc. 1. In fact, ineffective assistance is not raised until
Mr. McCarty’s reply to the government’s habeas response. See R. doc. 10
(challenging denial of motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance).
The district court denied Mr. McCarty’s ineffective assistance claim for failure to
state facts supporting the claim and for failure to allege prejudice. See R. doc.
21, at 5-6. There was no abuse of discretion in the denial of an evidentiary
hearing.
Second, Mr. McCarty claims that the district court erred in sentencing him
under the 1995 version of the Guidelines, rather than the 1991 version. There is
no evidence that Mr. McCarty was sentenced under either version. In fact, his
direct appeal suggests that Mr. McCarty was properly sentenced under “the 1993
version.” See McCarty, 82 F.3d at 950 n.1. However, this issue was not raised
on direct appeal or before the district court on habeas. We will not address this
-2-
claim for the first time on appeal. See Moore v. Gibson, 195 F.3d 1152, 1181
(10th Cir. 1999).
We DENY a certificate of appealability, DENY the motion to supplement
the record, and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-
United States v. McCarty
Combined Opinion