Parker

United States v. Parker

Good Law
32 F. App'x 833
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 19, 2002No. 01-55082; D.C. Nos. CV-95-01241-RMT, CR-91-00165-RMTCalifornia739 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Michael Parker appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his federal habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , on grounds that it was procedurally barred. *834 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

At the outset, Parker argues that the district court erred in failing to convert his § 2255 petition into a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We note, however, that Parker did not raise this argument — either before the district court or an earlier merits panel of this Court— during the first phase of his federal habeas proceedings. 2 Moreover, Parker was not time-barred from filing such a motion earlier, nor is there any indication in the record that Parker, who was appointed very able counsel by the district court to represent him post-conviction, was in any way impeded from attempting to restyle his § 2255 petition as a motion for a new trial. Consequently, Parker’s Rule 33 argument is foreclosed because he failed to raise it prior to the district court’s initial summary dismissal of his § 2255 petition. See United States v. Real Property Located At 25445 Via…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.