IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10395
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOE EARL STRONG,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:95-CV-186-A
- - - - - - - - - -
August 24, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
"Relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 is reserved for
transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow range of
injuries that could not have been raised on direct appeal and
would, if condoned, result in a complete miscarriage of justice."
United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992).
Additionally, a movant cannot raise an issue for the first time
in a § 2255 motion unless he shows cause for his default and
prejudice resulting from the asserted error. United States v.
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-10395
-2-
Drobny, 955 F.2d 990, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1992).
Strong could have raised his non-constitutional contention
regarding FED. R. CRIM P. 11 on direct appeal but did not. His
contention is not cognizable in § 2255 proceedings. Vaughn, 955
F.2d at 368. Strong has shown no cause for failing to raise his
due process contention on direct appeal. Strong is procedurally
barred from raising that contention.
The district court may dispose of a § 2255 motion without a
hearing if "`the motion and the files and records of the case
conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.'"
United States v. Drummond, 910 F.2d 284, 285 (5th Cir.
1990)(citation omitted). The record in Strong's case
conclusively shows that he is not entitled to relief. The
district court need not have held an evidentiary hearing on
Strong's motion.
APPEAL DISMISSED.