Court Opinion

ID: 2963632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:17.011998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:40.897289
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        September 29, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                        

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1269

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                               RICHARD B. HUDSON, SR.,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Richard B. Hudson, Sr. on brief pro se.
            ______________________
            Jay P.  McCloskey, United  States Attorney,  and F. Mark  Terison,
            _________________                                ________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  The  judgment is affirmed substantially for
                 __________

            the reasons recited by the Magistrate-Judge in his Report and

            Recommendation  dated  December  14,   1994.    We  add  that

            defendant's  claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, even

            if properly before us, would  necessarily fail on the merits.

            Contrary  to defendant's  suggestion,  the  record before  us

            discloses no significant discrepancies between the debriefing

            statements,  on the one hand, and the trial testimony, on the

            other, of  the  two witnesses  in question.   And  as we  had

            occasion to observe  in our  decision on  direct appeal,  see
                                                                      ___

            United States v. Hudson, 970 F.2d 948, 950-54 (1st Cir. 1992)
            _____________    ______

            (passim),  co-defense  counsel  conducted a  diligent  cross-
             ______

            examination of these and all other witnesses. 

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

                                         -3-