Court Opinion

ID: 2963844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:16:05.315231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:47.144641
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        December 14, 1995       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2258 

                                   LEO R. LAVIGNE,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1034 

                                   LEO R. LAVIGNE,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Leo R. Lavigne on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney,  and Peter E. Papps, First
            ______________                               ______________
        Assistant United States  Attorney, on Motion  for Summary  Disposition
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Pro  se petitioner Leo Lavigne appeals
                      __________   ___  __

            two district court orders that respectively denied his motion

            to vacate his sentence  under 28 U.S.C.  2255 and  his motion

            for relief from that  denial under Fed. R. Civ.  P. 60(b)(6).

            We have carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs

            on appeal.  We affirm both district court orders.  We comment

            briefly on petitioner's main arguments.

                      1.   Petitioner  maintains that  he is  entitled to

            relief  from  his  sentence  because  his   defense  attorney

            rendered ineffective  assistance by failing  to raise certain

            arguments  at   petitioner's   sentencing  hearing.      More

            specifically, petitioner claims that  a prior state  sentence

            was  based on conduct that  was part of  his federal offense,

            and  therefore  his  counsel  should  have  objected  to  the

            inclusion of this sentence in the computation of petitioner's

            criminal history score under   U.S.S.G.   4A1.2(a)(1) (1991).

            Petitioner  also claims  that  counsel should  have moved  to

            reduce  his federal  sentence by  the amount  of time  he had

            already served on his  prior state sentence under  U.S.S.G.  

            5G1.3(b), n.3.

                      Both  of these  claims  are  based on  petitioner's

            conclusory assertion that his prior state sentence arose from

            conduct that was part of his federal offense.  This assertion

            is  based on two factual allegations:   (1) that petitioner's

            state  and  federal  convictions  occurred  within  the  same

                                         -3-

            general time frame of  the conspiracy charged in  the federal

            indictment (i.e.,  1984-1991), and (2) that  the cocaine from

            petitioner's  prior conviction  was  included in  the cocaine

            that  was attributed to him  at his federal  sentencing.  The

            fact that  petitioner's state  and federal offenses  occurred

            within the same general time frame is not alone sufficient to

            establish that his state offense constituted conduct that was

            part of his federal  offense.  See United States  v. Escobar,
                                           ___ _____________     _______

            992  F.2d 87, 90  (6th Cir. 1992); United  States v. Kerr, 13
                                               ______________    ____

            F.3d  203, 205-06 (7th Cir.  1993), cert. denied,  114 S. Ct.
                                                _____ ______

            1629  (1994).     Thus,  to  the   extent  that  petitioner's

            ineffective  assistance   claim  is  based  on  this  factual

            allegation, it is plainly inadequate.     Petitioner's  claim

            that the cocaine from his prior state conviction was included

            in the quantity of cocaine that was attributed to him  at his

            federal sentencing  is  conclusively refuted  by the  record.

            The  presentence report (PSR,    7A)  discloses that  the two

            eight-ounce   cocaine   purchases  upon   which  petitioner's

            sentence was based  occurred in April  and November of  1989.

            Petitioner's  state conviction  was based  on the  seizure of

            approximately five grams of cocaine from petitioner's home on

            March  2, 1989.   See  State v.  Lavigne, 588  A.2d 741,  743
                              ___  _____     _______

            (1991).     Obviously   the  cocaine   that  was   seized  in

            petitioner's home in March 1989 could not have  been included

            in either of the  two eight-ounce purchases that he  made the

                                         -4-
                                          4

            following April and  November.   Thus, petitioner's  contrary

            claim is conclusively refuted by the record.  

                      As  petitioner's claim  that  the cocaine  from his

            prior conviction  was included in the  quantity attributed to

            him at his federal sentencing  is conclusively refuted by the

            record, and petitioner has  not alleged sufficient facts that

            otherwise  support his claim that  his state offense was part

            of the conduct that led to his federal conviction, petitioner

            has   failed  to  show   that  counsel  rendered  ineffective

            assistance by failing to object to the inclusion of his prior

            sentence  in  his criminal  history  score  under U.S.S.G.   

            4A1.2(a)(1) and by failing to seek a sentence reduction under

            U.S.S.G.    5G1.3(b), n.3.  See Barrett v. United States, 965
                                        ___ _______    _____________

            F.2d 1184, 1186 (1st Cir.  1992) (summary dismissal is proper

            where  a   2255  motion is  inadequate  on  its  face, or  is

            conclusively refuted as to the alleged facts by the files and

            records  of the case, or where the alleged grounds for relief

            are  based on bald assertions without sufficiently particular

            and supportive factual allegations);  Acha v. United  States,
                                                  ____    ______________

            910 F.2d 28, 30 (1st Cir. 1990) (court  of appeals may affirm

            on any ground supported by the record).  

                      2.    Petitioner contends  that the  district court

            erred  in denying  his Rule  60(b)(6) motion  because defense

            counsel  failed  to  discuss  his  intent  to  seek  a  minor

            participant adjustment with him  and further failed to inform

                                         -5-
                                          5

            petitioner  that  he had  the  right to  appeal  the district

            court's adverse ruling on  this issue.  We review  the denial

            of  Rule 60(b)  motions only  for abuse  of discretion.   See
                                                                      ___

            Hoult  v. Hoult,  57 F.3d 1,  3 (1st  Cir. 1995).   "[A]bsent
            _____     _____

            exceptional  circumstances, motions under  Rule 60(b)(6) must

            raise  issues not available to the  moving party before final

            judgment entered."  Vasapolli v. Rostoff, 39 F.3d 27, 37 n. 8
                                _________    _______

            (1st  Cir.  1994)(citations  omitted).   Petitioner  has  not

            alleged any  good  reason why  these  ineffective  assistance

            claims  could  not have  been  raised in  his  original  2255

            motion.1    Thus,  the  district  court  did  not  abuse  its

            discretion in denying the Rule 60(b)(6) motion.   

                      As   petitioner  has  not  raised  any  meritorious

            arguments, the judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C.  2255 motion

            is affirmed.  The order denying his Rule 60(b)(6) motion also
               ________

            is affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.
               ________   ___

                                
            ____________________

            1.  Petitioner  contends  that exceptional  circumstances are
            present  because  he   did  not   receive  the   government's
            opposition  to his  2255 motion until recently.  Even if that
            is  so, we  fail to  see how  that prevented  petitioner from
            cataloging counsel's  alleged errors in his  original motion.
            Moreover,   petitioner failed  to raise this  argument below,
            therefore it is not properly before us. 

                                         -6-
                                          6