Court Opinion

ID: 2963929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:36.812177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:24.519303
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                         
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2122

                                   OSCAR DIAZ-CRUZ,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                         FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Oscar Diaz-Cruz on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Guillermo Gil,  United States  Attorney, Jose  A. Quiles-Espinosa,
            _____________                            ________________________
        Senior  Litigation    Counsel,  and  Warren  Vazquez,  Assistant  U.S.
                                             _______________
        Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  February 27, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Appellant Oscar Diaz-Cruz appeals from
                      __________

            the denial of a  motion to vacate his sentence filed under 28

            U.S.C.    2255.   He  claims that  the disparity  between his

            sentence and those of two of his co-defendants is unwarranted

            and  unreasonable.  For the following  reasons, we agree that

            the   2255 motion was meritless.

                      Only certain kinds of alleged sentencing errors may

            be raised in a collateral proceeding under   2255.  These are

            that (1) a sentence violates  the Constitution or the laws of

            the  United  States,  (2)  the  district  court  was  without

            jurisdiction  to impose  the sentence,  (3)  the sentence  is

            greater than the statutory maximum, and (4) the sentence  "is

            otherwise subject  to collateral  attack."   See 28  U.S.C.  
                                                         ___

            2255; Knight  v. United  States, 37 F.3d  769, 772  (1st Cir.
                  ______     ______________

            1994).  Appellant  does not allege that his sentence violates

            the  Constitution.    Nor  could  he.   A  defendant  has  no

            constitutional  right to receive the same sentence as another

            convicted of the  same offense.   Williams  v. Illinois,  399
                                              ________     ________

            U.S. 235, 243 (1970) ("[t]he Constitution permits qualitative

            differences  in meting out punishment").  Appellant also does

            not assert  that the  district court  lacked jurisdiction  or

            that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.

                      This leaves  the last  ground.   The Supreme  Court

            "has   narrowly  confined  the   scope  and  availability  of

            collateral   attack   for   claims   that   do   not   allege

                                         -2-

            constitutional or jurisdictional errors."  Knight, 37 F.3d at
                                                       ______

            772.

                      Such claims are properly  brought under  
                      2255  only if  the  claimed  error is  "a
                      fundamental   defect   which   inherently
                      results  in  a  complete  miscarriage  of
                      justice"  or  "an  omission  inconsistent
                      with  the  rudimentary  demands  of  fair
                      procedure."    The  error  must  "present
                      exceptional circumstances where  the need
                      for the  remedy afforded  by the  writ of
                      habeas corpus is apparent."
                      _____________

            Id.  (quoting  Hill  v.  United States,  368  U.S.  424,  428
            ___            ____      _____________

            (1962)).

                      Appellant's  claim does not rise  to the level of a

            miscarriage of justice.  "Absent extraordinary circumstances,

            a defendant  has no . .  . fundamental interest  in whether a

            sentence reflects his . . . relative culpability with respect

            to his . . . co-defendants."  United States v. Bokun, 73 F.3d
                                          _____________    _____

            8,      (2d Cir. 1995).  See also United States v. Rodriguez,
               ____                  ___ ____ _____________    _________

            63  F.3d  1159,  1168  (1st  Cir.) ("the  mere  fact  of  [a]

            disparity is  of no consequence"),  cert. denied, 116  S. Ct.
                                                ____________

            681  (1995).    Appellant fails  to  state  any extraordinary

            circumstances  surrounding his case;  he relies instead  on a

            fairness argument.  In this context, we note that the general

            rule in this  circuit is that it is not proper for a district

            court  to depart  from  a  guideline range  in  an effort  to

            equalize  the  sentences  of similarly  situated  defendants.

            United States v. Wogan, 938 F.2d 1446, 1448 (1st Cir.), cert.
            _____________    _____                                  _____

            denied, 502 U.S. 969 (1991).   Given appellant's lack in this
            ______

                                         -3-

            case of a "fundamental interest" in a sentence equal to those

            of his co-defendants, his claim of disparate treatment is not

            cognizable on a   2255 motion.  See, e.g., Entrekin v. United
                                            ___  ____  ________    ______

            States,  508 F.2d  1328, 1330  (8th  Cir. 1974)  (defendant's
            ______

            assertion that his sentence was harsher than that received by

            his co-defendant cannot be raised  in a   2255 motion), cert.
                                                                    _____

            denied, 421 U.S. 977 (1975).
            ______

                      We  add  only  that  to  the  extent  appellant  is

            separately challenging the  trial court's enhancement of  his

            base offense level by two, "[a] non-constitutional claim that

            could have been,  but was not, raised  on appeal, may not  be

            asserted by collateral attack under   2255 absent exceptional

            circumstances."  Knight, 37  F.3d at 772.  We can perceive no
                             ______

            obstacle that would have prevented appellant from challenging

            the two-level enhancement on direct appeal.  "Having bypassed

            his opportunity  to  raise the  claim  on direct  appeal,  he

            cannot raise it now on collateral attack."  Id. at 773.
                                                        ___

                      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                                                            ________

                                         -4-