Court Opinion

ID: 2964935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:10.790711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:24.563386
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2033

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  VINCENT LOMBARDI,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Vince Lombardi on brief pro se.
            ______________
            Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney,  and Andrew J.  Reich,
            __________________                               ________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   October 17, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and
                 __________

            record, we perceive  no reason to set  aside appellant's plea

            or sentence.

                 The  plea proceedings  reveal  no fundamental  defect or

            miscarriage of justice.   Appellant's argument  regarding the

            scope of 18 U.S.C.   371 is  meritless.  See United States v.
                                                     ___ _____________

            Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 422  (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S.
            _______                                ____________

            820 (1994).  The  record does not support appellant's  claims

            that  his plea  was coerced  and that  the plea  colloquy was

            confusing  or inadequate.   Further,  as  the district  court

            carefully ascertained the voluntariness of appellant's  plea,

            and his plea  agreement reflected the  reciprocal arrangement

            with the codefendant,  we are not compelled to  set aside the

            plea.   Cf. United States  v. Martinez-Molina,  64 F.3d  719,
                    ___ _____________     _______________

            732-34 (1st Cir. 1995). 

                 The sentencing proceedings  reveal no clear error  as to

            the  adjustments under U.S.S.G.     2B1.1(b)(4)(B) & 3B1.1(c)

            or otherwise.  And,  by providing that the  restitution order

            was subject to reconsideration, the district court adequately

            took into account appellant's ability to pay.  

                 Appellant's  remaining  arguments do  not  merit further

            comment.

                 We   do  not   address   appellant's  claims   regarding

            ineffective assistance  of counsel,  as such  claims must  be

                                         -2-

            presented to  the district court  in the first instance  in a

            motion under 28 U.S.C.   2255.  

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -3-