United States v. Mack ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 95-6964
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    STANLEY MACK,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.    Matthew J. Perry, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-90-18-3)
    Submitted:   November 30, 1995             Decided:   June 11, 1996
    Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge,      WILKINS,    Circuit   Judge,   and
    PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Stanley Mack, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Stanley Melvin Mack appeals from a district court order deny-
    ing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (1988) motion. We affirm.
    Mack filed this motion alleging that, during sentencing, the
    district court relied on materially false information regarding a
    prior conviction of possession of burglary tools. First, Mack
    failed to show that he preserved this claim by timely objection.
    See United States v. Bowman, 
    926 F.2d 380
    , 382 (4th Cir. 1991).
    Second, Mack failed to shoulder his burden of revealing falsity in
    the challenged information. United States v. Rachels, 
    820 F.2d 325
    ,
    327-28 (9th Cir. 1987). Mack's evidence in support of his claim
    consisted of evidence that related charges were nolle prossed and
    his statement that he was not convicted of any charges stemming
    from the underlying acts. We find this insufficient in the face of
    the record, which reveals the burglary-tool conviction. Therefore,
    we affirm the district court order.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-6964

Filed Date: 6/11/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021