Court Opinion

ID: 2965847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:45:34.117751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:52.154202
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-1543

                          UNITED STATES,

                            Appellee,

                                v.

                     JOHAMID HERNANDEZ-COTTO,

                      Defendant, Appellant.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

         [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                    Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                        Circuit Judges.
                                
                                
                                
                                
     Maria Soledad Ramirez-Becerra on brief for appellant.
     Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega-Pacheco,
Assistant United States Attorney, and Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant
United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

June 10, 1999

                                
  
  
            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and
  record, we find no merit in defendant's belated claim that his
  plea was invalid.  The district court was not obligated to
  provide the detailed instruction suggested by defendant, and,
  in addition, it is implausible that the omitted information
  would have made any material difference in defendant's decision
  to plead guilty.  Defendant has not shown "a fundamental defect
  which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice
  . . . or an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands
  of fair procedure."  United States v. Lopez-Pineda, 55 F.3d
  693, 696-97 (1st Cir. 1995) (internal citations and quotations
  omitted).
            Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of
  counsel also fails.  Even assuming arguendo that defendant's
  factual assertions were true, in all the circumstances of this
  case, we cannot say that defendant's attorney was required to
  advise what we view as a "very dangerous course."  See United
  States v. Montanez, 82 F.3d 520, 523 (1st Cir. 1996).
            Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.