United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Melvin Meredith, A/k/a Monk, Defendant-appellant, 983 F.2d 1058 (4th Cir. 1992)

Melvin Meredith appeals from the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. Meredith brought the current motion alleging that his presentence investigation report included information about criminal activity for which he was not convicted.

First, Meredith's claims are that the uncharged crime was not discussed at trial and that the presentence report did not itself prove him guilty of the uncharged crime. The crime need not have been discussed at trial to be included in the presentence report. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c). And the report need not have itself proved Meredith's guilt on the uncharged crime. See id.; United States v. Roberts, 881 F.2d 95, 104-06 (4th Cir. 1989); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246 (1949). Second, it appears that Meredith failed to bring these claims on direct appeal, thus waiving further review. United States v. Emanuel, 869 F.2d 795 (4th Cir. 1989). Finally, Meredith previously brought another § 2255 motion. Thus, the current motion is successive and need not have been entertained by the district court. Rule 9(b), Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings. The motion was appropriately dismissed. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of the motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED