IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60861
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES of AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
ANTHONY CLARK MARION
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC Nos. 3:97-CV-191; 3:94-CR-36-4
--------------------
February 7, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Anthony Clark Marion, former
police chief of Holly Springs, Mississippi, moved for relief from
his conviction and sentence arising from his acceptance of
payoffs from a drug dealer. The district court held an
evidentiary hearing on the question of three jurors’ truthfulness
during voir dire. At the hearing, the district court heard the
testimony of Marion’s trial attorney and the three jurors.
Marion was required to demonstrate that the jurors failed to
answer material questions honestly and that correct responses
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-60861
-2-
would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.
McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U. S. 548, 556
(1984); Montoya v. Scott, 65 F.3d 405, 418 (5th Cir. 1995).
After the hearing, the court concluded that the “three
jurors’ failure to disclose the information asserted by the
petitioner [did] not raise a material question concerning bias
that would demand a removal for cause [and] that the jurors’
omissions of immaterial facts” did not furnish grounds for a new
trial. Accordingly, the district court denied relief. Marion
filed a notice of appeal, and district court certified for appeal
the issue of juror bias based on their answers during voir dire.
Because Marion has been convicted and has exhausted his
appeal rights, the court on collateral review may presume that he
stands fairly and finally convicted. United States v. Shaid, 937
F.2d 228, 231-32 (5th Cir. 1991) (en banc). In reviewing the
district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion, this court examines
the factual findings for clear error and issues of law de novo.
United States v. Faubion, 19 F.3d 226, 228 (5th Cir. 1994). A
factual finding is clearly erroneous only if a review of the
evidence leaves the reviewing court with the “definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City
of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, (1985); Bryant v. Scott, 28
F.3d 1411, 1414, n.3 (5th Cir. 1994). When findings rest on the
credibility of witnesses, “even greater deference to the trial
court’s findings” is warranted. Anderson, 470 U.S. at 575;
Johnson v. Collins, 964 F.2d 1527, 1532 (5th Cir.1992).
No. 99-60861
-3-
Marion fails to argue or show that the district court
committed clear error or legal error. Rather, he repeats the
arguments he made in the district court. “Duplication of the
trial judge’s efforts in the court of appeals” is precisely what
the “clear error” standard is intended to avoid. See Anderson,
470 U.S. at 574-75.
Based on the testimony of the jurors and in light of the
great deference due the district court’s assessment of the
credibility of witnesses, it was not clear error to find that no
juror was biased. Nor did the district court err in refusing to
presume or impute juror bias. Andrews v. Collins, 21 F.3d 612,
620 (5th Cir. 1994) (bias not imputed absent extraordinary
circumstances).
The district court’s denial of Marion’s motion is AFFIRMED.