United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lucio Brito, Defendant-appellant, 996 F.2d 312 (10th Cir. 1993)

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, contrary to 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) (1988), and one count of Use of a Firearm in a Drug Trafficking Crime, contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1) (1988). He subsequently filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988). All relief was denied.

Defendant then brought a second motion under § 2255, raising many of the same claims. The district court denied relief, finding that the motion was repetitious, and dismissed it pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Motions. Defendant appeals.² 

We have examined the record and conclude, with one exception, that Defendant's arguments are repetitious. The only new argument is Defendant's startling claim that he never pleaded guilty to the § 924(c) (1) weapons charge. This argument, however, is entirely without merit. We have reviewed both Defendant's written Statement in Advance of Plea of Guilty and the transcript of his plea allocution. Both of these documents clearly show that Defendant explicitly pleaded guilty to the weapons charge.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.