United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lionell Hughes, Defendant-appellant, 981 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1992)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Lionell Hughes, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate the sentence imposed upon him following his conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d). He contends that the district court erred by finding that his conviction was not the result of an involuntary guilty plea.¹  We review de novo a district court's decision on a section 2255 motion. Grady v. United States, 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir. 1991). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and we affirm.

Claims of constitutional error or lack of jurisdiction may be freely raised in a section 2255 proceeding. United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979). Claims of non-constitutional errors of law or fact, however, may be raised only if the alleged error is a fundamental defect that renders the entire proceeding irregular and invalid or results in a complete miscarriage of justice. Id. at 185-86.

Here, Hughes contends that his conviction was based on an involuntary guilty pleas. He points to the judgment and probation/commitment order dated January 11, 1985 for his argument. Nevertheless, the only plea entered was his plea of not guilty at his arraignment on October 18, 1984. Hughes waived his right to a jury trial and was convicted following a bench trial based on stipulated facts.

Therefore, he fails to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Hughes' motion is without merit and the district court properly denied it.

AFFIRMED.