United States v. Willie MacK JR., 981 F.2d 1252, 4th Cir. (1992)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Willie MacK JR., 981 F.2d 1252, 4th Cir. (1992)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs981 F.
2d 1252
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of
unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Willie MACK, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 92-5461.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 30, 1992
Decided: December 16, 1992
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, District Judge. (CR-91-167-R)
Bruce Elliot Welch, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant.
E. Montgomery Tucker, United States Attorney, Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
W.D.Va.
Affirmed.
Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN,
Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
OPINION
1
Willie Mack was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 922(g) (West Supp. 1992). Pursuant to Fed.
R. Crim. P. 33, Mack submitted a motion for new trial alleging newly
discovered evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court
denied the motion, and we affirm.
2
A district court's denial of a motion for new trial will not be set aside absent an
abuse of discretion. United States v. Lopez-Escobar, 920 F.2d 1241, 1246 (5th
Cir. 1991). Mack was convicted based upon weapons found in his home during
a search executed by state police pursuant to a search warrant. On appeal, Mack
asserts that his first1 attorney failed to interview"the officer who obtained the
search warrant or to investigate the probability of the affidavit [filed in support
of the search warrant] being based on false information." However, on this
record, Mack's claim relies solely on unsupported allegations. He provides no
evidence to support his contention and no indication that the information he
obtained was newly discovered. Thus, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying his Rule 33 motion.2
In conclusion, we affirm the district court's denial of Mack's motion for a new
trial. 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
It appears from the record that Mack's current attorney took over the case just
prior to the sentencing hearing
This opinion does not prejudice Mack's ability to file a 28 U.S.C. 2255 (1988)
motion to fully develop his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See
generally United v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991) (ineffective
assistance of counsel claims are more appropriately raised in a collateral attack
where sufficient record can be developed)
