United States v. Seavey

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: June 15, 1998
• Docket: 97-2067
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 97-2067

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

HARRY MURPHY SEAVEY,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge, Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

Harry Murphy Seavey on brief pro se. Henry W. Griffin on brief for appellant. Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, Margaret D. McGaughey and Gail F. Malone, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for appellee.

June 12, 1998

Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs (including appellant's pro se filings) and the record, we find no merit in any of appellant's arguments: 1. There was no plain error in sentencing appellant under the armed career criminal provisions. See United Statesv. Sullivan, 98 F.3d 686, 689 (1st Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 1344 (1997). 2. The applicable offense level was properly determined under U.S.S.G. 4B1.4(b), thereby mooting appellant's argument about calculation of a lower offense level under U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(2). 3. Before the sentencing hearing, appellant withdrew his motion for a downward departure based on mitigating circumstances, and so his argument on that subject was waived. 4. The record before us gives no hint of any irregularity in the plea proceedings. If defendant believes he has claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in that regard or in any other regard, he may raise those claims in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 2255, but we will not consider them in the context of this direct appeal. See United Statesv. Georgacarakos, 988 F.2d 1289, 1297 (1st Cir. 1993). Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.