Court Opinion

ID: 2964632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:28:37.822613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:56.129968
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2168

                                  TERRENCE BROOKER,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Terrence Terain Brooker on brief pro se.
            _______________________
            Sheldon  Whitehouse, United  States Attorney,  Margaret E.  Curran
            ___________________                            ___________________
        and Edwin J.  Gale, Assistant  United States Attorneys,  on brief  for
            ______________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    April 29, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   Pro  se  appellant  Terrence Brooker
                      ___________

            appeals  from the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence

            under 28 U.S.C.   2255.  We affirm.

                      In   his   motion,   Brooker   alleged   that   his

            constitutional  rights to  due process  and to  the effective

            assistance  of counsel  had been  violated when  his attorney

            failed  to challenge, at sentencing  or on direct appeal, his

            enhanced  sentencing  for  conspiring  to distribute  and  to

            possess crack cocaine.   According to Brooker, the government

            failed to prove that  the drug crime to which  he pled guilty

            involved  "crack cocaine,"  rather  than some  other form  of

            "cocaine base"  for which he  would have been  more leniently

            sentenced.    However,  the  plea  hearing  transcript  shows

            unambiguously that, under oath, Brooker knowingly admitted to

            having   agreed   to  distribute   crack  cocaine   in  taped

            conversations with a  government informant.  "There can be no

            question that admissions to the court by a defendant during a

            guilty plea colloquy  can be relied upon by  the court at the

            sentencing  stage."  United States v. James, 78 F.3d 851, 856
                                 _____________    _____

            (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 128  (1996).  Because the
                       ____________

            record  conclusively  refutes  the allegations  in  Brooker's

            unverified     2255  motion,  the district  court  was  fully

            justified  in   denying   the  motion   without  holding   an

            evidentiary  hearing.  See United States  v. LaBonte, 70 F.3d
                                   ___ _____________     _______

            1396,  1413 (1st Cir. 1995),  petition for cert. granted, 116
                                          __________________________

                                         -2-

            S. Ct. 2545 (1996) (a   2255 motion may  be dismissed without

            an evidentiary hearing if key factual averments in the motion

            are  contradicted "by  established  facts of  record"; habeas

            claims  must "rest  on  a foundation  of factual  allegations

            presented  under  oath,  either  in a  verified  petition  or

            supporting affidavits").  

                 Moreover, the district court had no obligation to permit

            Brooker to  file a "traverse" to  the government's opposition

            to  his motion, as  Brooker claims.   This is  so because the

            government  did not ask for dismissal of the   2255 motion as

            a  delayed or  successive petition.    See Barrett  v. United
                                                   ___ _______     ______

            States,  965 F.2d 1184, 1187 n.3  (1st Cir. 1992) (the   2255
            ______

            rules do not contemplate the filing of a traverse, unless the

            government's response asks for  dismissal of the motion under

            Rule 9 relative to delayed or successive motions).

                      On   appeal,  Brooker  has   made  new   claims  of

            ineffective  assistance of  counsel, proffering  a supporting

            affidavit which  was never  presented to the  district court.

            We decline to consider  his new claims.  See United States v.
                                                     ___ _____________

            Ocasio-Rivera,  991 F.2d  1,  3 (1st  Cir.  1993) ("It  is  a
            _____________

            bedrock  principle  in  this  circuit  that  issues  must  be

            squarely  raised  in the  district court  if  they are  to be

            preserved for appeal.  That principle applies unreservedly in

            the  criminal   sentencing  context.").     Brooker  has  not

                                         -3-

            described any exceptional circumstances that  would warrant a

            different outcome.

                      Affirmed.
                      _________

                                         -4-