Court Opinion

ID: 2965076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:54.212871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:05.141475
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1689

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   ANTONIUS TURNER,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Kevin S. Nixon on brief for appellant.
            ______________
            Antonius Turner on supplemental brief pro se.
            _______________
            Donald K.  Stern, United  States Attorney,  and  Carmen M.  Ortiz,
            ________________                                 ________________
        Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   January 21, 1998
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   After a thorough review of  the record and
                 __________

            the briefs  submitted by the  parties, we affirm.   Appellant

            Antonius Turner  ("Turner") challenges  the district  court's

            denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his car

            during a traffic stop.   He contends the officers who stopped

            him lacked a  "reasonable suspicion" that  he was engaged  in

            criminal activity, see Delaware v. Prouse, 440  U.S. 648, 663
                               ___ __________________

            (1979), but  we disagree.   Given  Turner's  long history  of

            driving  without a  license and  ignoring  warnings that  his

            failure to  obtain a  license would result  in his  arrest--a

            history with which the arresting officer was quite familiar--

            it was manifestly reasonable for the officer to assume Turner

            was persisting in his failure to obtain a driver's license.

                 Turner  has  filed  a supplemental  brief  pro  se which
                                                            ___  __

            raises a number of additional issues, but his arguments fail.

            Even  if  the  district  court  did  not  fully  comply  with

            Fed.R.Crim.P. 11  when it accepted  his guilty plea,  we find

            that  any error was  harmless, since Turner  fully understood

            the  quantity of  drugs to  which  he was  admitting and  the

            sentence  upon which the  parties had agreed.   Fed.R.Crim.P.

            11(h).  Further,  we see no evidence  in the record  that his

            plea was involuntary.   His claim that  his sentence violated

            the  eighth amendment  was  not  preserved  for  appeal,  and

            nowhere  in  the record  does  it  appear  that  Turner  ever

            objected  to  the  probation  officer's  statement  that  the

                                         -2-

            substance  at issue  was cocaine  base, or  that he  made any

            other  objections to  the Presentence  Report.   By  pleading

            guilty,  he waived  his right to  challenge any  speedy trial

            violation.   United States  v. Cordero,  42 F.3d  697, 698-99
                         _________________________

            (1st Cir.  1994).  We  do not reach any  conclusion regarding

            the merits  of his  ineffective assistance  claim, since  the

            record on this  issue is not fully developed.   United States
                                                            _____________

            v. Carrington,  96 F.3d  1, 6  (1st Cir.  1996).   Turner may
            _____________

            raise this  issue by filing a motion  pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  

            2255 in the  district court.  The motion  should be supported

            by  a  signed affidavit  from  Turner  stating at  a  minimum

            whether his attorney  advised him before  his guilty plea  of

            the results of the second weighing of the cocaine seized from

            him on the night of his arrest.

                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 _________

                                         -3-