David Guardino v. United States

972 F.2d 347, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 25920, 1992 WL 198547
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedAugust 18, 1992
Docket92-5336
StatusUnpublished

This text of 972 F.2d 347 (David Guardino v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
David Guardino v. United States, 972 F.2d 347, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 25920, 1992 WL 198547 (6th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

972 F.2d 347

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
David GUARDINO, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 92-5336.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 18, 1992.

Before BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr. AND SILER, Circuit Judges, and CLELAND, District Judge.*

ORDER

David Guardino moves for in forma pauperis status, transcript, and counsel, and appeals the district court's order dismissing his motion to vacate sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Guardino pled guilty to illegal use of credit cards in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(e). He received a five year sentence. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Guardino claimed that he was coerced into an illegal plea agreement, and was inadequately represented by counsel. The district court dismissed the motion as Guardino has a direct appeal pending in the Sixth Circuit concerning denial of his Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) motion. See Jones v. United States, 453 F.2d 351 (5th Cir.1972).

On appeal, Guardino argues that the district court improperly dismissed his motion to vacate sentence. Upon review, we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed the motion to vacate sentence for the reasons stated in its February 18, 1992, order. Accordingly, that order is affirmed. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. The motions for in forma pauperis status, transcript, and counsel are denied.

*

The Honorable Robert H. Cleland, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ottis Mayo Jones v. United States
453 F.2d 351 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
972 F.2d 347, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 25920, 1992 WL 198547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-guardino-v-united-states-ca6-1992.