March 31, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 93-1701
GEORGE W. DAVID,
Petitioner, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge]
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
George W. David on brief pro se.
A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, and John P. Pucci,
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
Per Curiam. Appellant George W. David appeals from
the dismissal of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255. In
this motion, appellant argues that a portion of his sentence
should be vacated. However, appellant did not object to the
sentence at the time it was imposed nor did he pursue a
direct appeal.
Where a criminal defendant does not object below
and does not appeal his sentence, he is barred form raising
his challenge to the sentence in a 2255 motion unless he
can establish cause and prejudice as required by United
States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 (1982). See Suveges v.
United States, 7 F.3d 6, 10 (1st Cir. 1993) (failure of
2255 movant to object at trial to enhanced term of supervised
release and to appeal sentence "in the first instance,"
constituted procedural default; movant therefore must show
cause and prejudice to obtain collateral relief); Ford v.
United States, 983 F.2d 897, 898-99 (8th Cir. 1993) (per
curiam) (defendant was procedurally barred, absent a showing
of cause and prejudice, from raising sentencing issues in a
2255 motion which he had failed to pursue on direct appeal).
Appellant, having failed to show cause, is barred from
raising the issue now.
In any event, we have carefully reviewed the record
and the briefs of the parties and find no plain error in the
district court's decision. We therefore affirm the judgment
of the district court.
-3-