Court Opinion

ID: 2963495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:10:52.333554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:05.686232
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 29, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2143

                                   KEVIN G. TAYLOR,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Walter Jay Skinner, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Kevin G. Taylor on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and  Kimberly S.  Budd,
            ________________                                _________________
        Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  This is an appeal of a district court order
                 __________

            denying the  motion of petitioner  Kevin Taylor to  set aside

            his conviction  and sentence.    See 28  U.S.C.    2255.   We
                                             ___

            affirm  the district  court's  order  substantially  for  the

            reasons given by Judge Skinner, adding a brief comment.  Like

            the district court, we  can find no indication that  the lack

            of  counsel at  arraignment affected  petitioner's subsequent

            trial.   No  presumption exists  that lack  of counsel  at an

            arraignment   prejudices   all  subsequent   stages   of  the

            proceeding where, as here,  the only significant happening at

            the arraignment  was the entry  of a not  guilty plea.   And,

            without some  infection of the subsequent  proceedings, there

            is no warrant for relief under   2255.

                 Affirmed.  
                 ________