Harrison Smith v. United States

57 F.3d 1070, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 20923, 1995 WL 364247
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJune 16, 1995
Docket94-6640
StatusPublished

This text of 57 F.3d 1070 (Harrison Smith 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
Harrison Smith v. United States, 57 F.3d 1070, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 20923, 1995 WL 364247 (6th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

57 F.3d 1070
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

Harrison SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 94-6640.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 16, 1995.

Before: NELSON and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges, and JARVIS, Chief District Judge.*

ORDER

Harrison Smith appeals a district court order denying his motion to vacate sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

In 1990, a jury convicted Smith on two counts of murder-for-hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1958. The district court sentenced Smith to 57 months of imprisonment. On appeal, this court affirmed Smith's conviction and sentence. United States v. Smith, Case No. 90-6290 (6th Cir. Oct. 29, 1991) (unpublished per curiam), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1665 (1993).

Smith subsequently filed a lengthy motion to vacate sentence, alleging numerous grounds for relief. A magistrate judge issued a report recommending the denial of the motion. Despite obtaining an extension of time, Smith never filed objections to the magistrate judge's report. The district court adopted the report and denied the motion. Smith has filed a timely appeal. On appeal, he requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis.

Upon review, we conclude that Smith has waived his right to raise his issues on appeal because he did not file objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir.1981). Nor has Smith presented exceptional circumstances warranting an exception to this rule in the interests of justice. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 155 and n. 15.

Accordingly, we grant Smith's request to proceed in forma pauperis for the limited purpose of review on appeal and affirm the district court's judgment. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable James H. Jarvis, II, Chief United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 F.3d 1070, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 20923, 1995 WL 364247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-smith-v-united-states-ca6-1995.