Court Opinion

ID: 2963969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:18:16.730619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:43.821967
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        April 5, 1996           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1868

                                  TEDDY LEON-AYALA,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                         FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                 [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

            Teddy Leon-Ayala on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Guillermo Gil,   United States Attorney,  Jose A. Quiles Espinosa,
            _____________                             _______________________
        Senior   Litigation  Counsel,  and   Warren  Vazquez,  Assistant  U.S.
                                             _______________
        Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Petitioner  challenges the denial of a
                      __________

            motion  under 28  U.S.C.    2255  to  vacate or  correct  his

            sentence.  We affirm.

                      Petitioner was convicted by  a jury, along with his

            codefendants, of  conspiring to  possess, and possession  of,

            cocaine  with intent to distribute in  violation of 21 U.S.C.

               841(a)(1), 846.  A charge of use of a  firearm in relation

            to  a drug offense under 21 U.S.C.   924(c)(1), was dismissed

            by  the court  for insufficient  evidence, and a  judgment of

            acquittal  entered  thereon  under   Fed.  R.  Crim.  P.  29.

            Petitioner's  conviction   and   sentence  (to   95   months'

            imprisonment)  were affirmed  on  appeal.   United States  v.
                                                        _____________

            Torres-Maldonado, 14  F.3d 95,  99, 103-05 (1st  Cir.), cert.
            ________________                                        _____

            denied, 115 S. Ct. 193 (1994).
            ______

                      The focus  of petitioner's    2255 attack is  a two

            level enhancement of his sentence for possession of a firearm

            in  connection   with  a   drug  offense  under   U.S.S.G.   

            2D1.1(b)(1).        (1)   He argues that his counsel rendered

            ineffective assistance  by failing  to object, or  failing to

            support  an objection, to the sentencing increase in light of

            his  acquittal  of the  firearms  charge  under 18  U.S.C.   

            924(c)(1).  The  claim is  belied by the  record which  shows

            that  counsel made  a  detailed objection  at the  sentencing

            hearing,  supported by  reasoned  argument.   The  sentencing

            enhancement was imposed over this objection because the court

                                         -2-

            found the facts  sufficient to satisfy  the lesser burden  of

            proof required for the  enhancement, in that petitioner could

            have  reasonably foreseen  his  accomplice's possession  of a

            weapon, and there was sufficient evidence connecting the drug

            offenses  to weapons  found at  the scene.   As  to counsel's

            failure to  renew the objection on  appeal, petitioner offers

            no  reason to suspect that  this was other  than a deliberate

            strategic  decision,  nor  that  he   reasonably  could  have

            expected to succeed in  an  appellate challenge to  the trial

            court's fact-based determination.  See United States v. Vega-
                                               ___ _____________    _____

            Encarnacion, 914 F.2d 20, 24 (1st Cir. 1990) (explaining that
            ___________

            a sentencing court's assessment of the factual record will be

            set  aside only  if "clearly  erroneous"), cert.  denied, 499
                                                       _____________

            U.S. 977 (1991); see also Lema v. United States, 987 F.2d 48,
                             ________ ____    _____________

            51  (1st Cir. 1993) (explaining elements  needed to sustain a

            claim  of ineffective assistance of counsel).  We thus see no

            "clear   error"  in   the   district  court's   rejection  of

            petitioner's ineffective assistance  of counsel claim  on the

            basis of the record facts.  See id. at 53.
                                        ___ ___

                      (2)    Petitioner  argues   that  because  two  co-

            defendants  won   reversals  on  appeal  of   their  firearms

            convictions  under  18  U.S.C.      924(c)(1),  the  sentence

            enhancement  petitioner  received  "as  a  result   of  their
                                                                    _____

            convictions  in  the  district  court  should  be   vacated."

                                         -3-

            Apprehending  no  basis  for  the connection  petitioner  has

            drawn, we reject this contention. 

                       (3)   Petitioner  argues  in a  supplement to  his

            brief that the  sentence enhancement should  be set aside  in

            light of  the Supreme  Court's decision  in Bailey  v. United
                                                        ______     ______

            States, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), decided during the pendency of
            ______

            this appeal.  We need not decide whether Bailey retroactively
                                                     ______

            applies to this  collateral proceeding, because the  decision

            does not  support, but undermines petitioner's  argument.  In

            Bailey  the Court  defined  the word  "use"  in 18  U.S.C.   
            ______

            924(c)(1), as  requiring proof of "active  employment" of the

            weapon to sustain a conviction.   Id. at 505, 508.  The Court
                                              ___

            expressly  distinguished the  statutory term  "use" from  the

            passive "possession" of a weapon which may trigger a sentence

            enhancement under U.S.S.G.    2D1.1(b)(1).   Id. at  508; see
                                                         ___          ___

            also United States v. Gary, 74  F.3d 304, 317 n.11 (1st  Cir.
            ____ _____________    ____

            1996) (explaining that Bailey recognizes that the  sentencing
                                   ______

            guidelines   may   provide   enhancements   based   on   mere

            possession).

                      Lastly, the district court did not err in disposing

            of this  motion without an evidentiary  hearing as petitioner

            offered no  reason it  could  not be  fairly and  effectively

            "heard" on the papers.  See United States v.  McGill, 11 F.3d
                                    ___ _____________     ______

            223, 225-26 (1st Cir. 1993).

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -4-