Paul Criswell v. United States

___________ No. 96-1582 ___________ Paul William Criswell, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: December 5, 1996 Filed: March 25, 1997 ___________ Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Paul William Criswell appeals the district court's1 dismissal of his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as an abuse of the writ. After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not thereby abuse its discretion, see Nachtigall v. Class, 48 F.3d 1076, 1079 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review), and that Criswell's allegations of pro se status and illiteracy are insufficient to demonstrate cause, see Smittie v. Lockhart, 843 F.2d 295, 298 (8th Cir. 1988). To the extent Criswell suggests his failure to present his claims in his first motion is excused because he did not receive the correct version of the presentence report, we conclude Criswell has not demonstrated he was prejudiced 1 The Honorable Elsijane Trimble Roy, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. by any alleged inaccuracies. See United States v. Flynn, 87 F.3d 996, 999 (8th Cir. 1996) (court need not determine whether cause exists where movant fails to demonstrate actual prejudice). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-