United States v. Garvis Eugene Freeny

Garvis Eugene Freeny, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, correct, or set aside his sentence. Freeny contends that several errors of counsel denied him effective assistance of counsel and that alleged errors in his post-sentence report violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.

The judgment is affirmed. Freeny has not shown that his attorney's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for the errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 , 106 S.Ct. 366, 370-371 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1986). Further, the district court has no jurisdiction under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 to entertain Free-ny’s challenge to his post-sentence report. Accordingly, the district court did not err in refusing to correct portions of Freeny’s allegedly inaccurate post-sentence report. See United States v. Sheela, 667 F.Supp. 724, 725 (D.Ore.1983).

FACTS

A federal grand jury indicted Freeny on forty-one counts of conspiracy to transfer counterfeit identification documents and to transport stolen checks. Freeny pleaded guilty to three counts of savings…