United States v. Vaughn
5th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026McDonald S.D. Miss.
- 2025Tamez v. United States S.D. Tex.
- 2025Coker S.D. Tex.
- 2025Martinez-Rodriguez S.D. Tex.
- 2025Regalado-Arita v. United States of America Do not docket in this case. File only in 6:21cr69-10. S.D. Tex.
- 2025Garza v. United States S.D. Tex.
- 2025Ezell v. United States W.D. Wash.
- 2024Scott v. United States D. Conn.
- 2024Campbell v. United States Of America <b><font color="red"> Do not docket in this case. File only in criminal case number 6:21cr121-3.</font></b> S.D. Tex.
- 2024Bustamante v. United States N.D. Tex.
Cites 1 statute
- Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence
Cites 1 case
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Ray VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges
- Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Attorneys
- Billy Ray Vaughn, pro se.
- Alfred E. Moretón, III, Robert O. Whit-well, U.S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.
Vaughn argues to this Court only that the district court incorrectly increased his sentence under the Guidelines 1) because he discharged a firearm and 2) for obstruction of justice.
Relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries that could not have been raised on direct appeal and would, if condoned, result in a complete miscarriage of justice. U.S. v. Capua, 656 F.2d 1033, 1037 (5th Cir.1981). Nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not, may not be asserted in a collateral proceeding. Id. Vaughn was sentenced within the Guideline range and did not appeal the sentence. A district court’s technical application of the Guidelines does not give rise to a constitutional issue. U.S. v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 50 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 2032, 114 L.Ed.2d 117 (1991).
Vaughn’s claim is not cognizable under the limited scope of relief available under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 because it is not of constitutional dimension, could have been raised on direct appeal, and there has been no showing as to why it was not.
AFFIRMED.