March 29, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 93-1975
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
GEORGE MORAN,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
George A. Moran on brief pro se.
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and George W. Vien,
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
Per Curiam. There was no abuse of discretion in denying
appellant's motions for discovery and for an evidentiary
hearing filed in advance of the filing of any motion to
vacate, set aside or correct a sentence, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 2255. Appellant is not entitled to either discovery
or an evidentiary hearing in the hope of uncovering some
basis for collateral relief from his conviction. See
DeVincent v. United States, 632 F.2d 145, 146 (1st Cir.)
(holding that there was no error in denying reconsideration
of dismissal of 2255 motion on the basis of a speculative
request for broad-scale discovery and evidentiary hearing,
which sought to subpoena grand jury foreman and members, the
Assistant United States Attorney and his aides, the court
stenographer, and the stenographer's notes and transcripts,
and to allow the questioning of all parties concerned about
the way in which the indictment was voted and returned),
cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1038 (1980); United States v. Lewis,
605 F.2d 379, 380 (8th Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (no error in
denying request for transcript of conviction in advance of
the filing of a 2255 motion). If the appellant has grounds
for collateral relief, he must first file a 2255 motion
setting forth, as best he can, some supported basis for his
claim. From this filing, the district court may then
determine whether discovery and/or an evidentiary hearing is
warranted.
-2-
Affirmed.
-3-