Court Opinion

ID: 2963964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:18:12.416234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:43.465625
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          April 8, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1902

                                     ABEL ROJAS,
                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                     Respondent.
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1906

                              EDUARDO A. ROBINSON-MUNOZ,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                 Defendant, Appellee.
                                                     
                                _____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                                     
                                _____________________

            Abel Rojas on brief pro se.
            __________
            Eduardo A. Robinson on brief pro se.
            ___________________
            Guillermo  Gil,  United   States  Attorney,   Edwin  O.   Vazquez,
            ______________                                ___________________
        Assistant United States Attorney,  and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
                                               _______________________
        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.
                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Eduardo Robinson-Munoz  and Abel Rojas
                      __________

            appeal  from the  district  court's summary  denial of  their

            motions under 28 U.S.C.   2255.  We affirm.
                                                ______

                      I.  Robinson
                          ________

                      Robinson challenges  his  conviction after  a  jury

            trial  of aiding and abetting the  possession, with intent to

            distribute,  of marijuana  aboard a  vessel, 46  U.S.C.App.  

            1903(a),  (c)(1)(A) & 18 U.S.C.   2.  Specifically, he argues

            that the  vessel ("the  Delfin") was  not  subject to  United

            States  jurisdiction because  it  was not  "a vessel  without

            nationality."   We rejected  that argument on  direct appeal.

            In United  States v. Robinson-Munoz,  961 F.2d 300  (1st Cir.
               ______________    ______________

            1992),  we  held  that  the government's  presentation  of  a

            certification of  the Secretary of State  indicating that the

            Colombian government had denied the Delfin captain's claim of

            Colombian registry "prove[d] jurisdiction beyond a reasonable

            doubt."  Id. at 305.   Robinson  again challenged  the United
                     ___

            States' jurisdiction  over the  Delfin in  his  first    2255

            motion.   The district court ruled that the issue had already

            been  decided on direct  appeal and could  not be relitigated

            under   2255.  Robinson-Munoz v. United States,  819 F. Supp.
                           ______________    _____________

            1136, 1142 (D. Puerto Rico 1993).  In   his  second      2255

            motion, Robinson  relied upon  new evidence to  challenge the

            United States'  jurisdiction over the  Delfin.  Specifically,

            Robinson relied upon  a letter  dated May 10,  1993 from  the

                                         -2-

            Secretary  General  of the  Colombian Department  of National

            Defense ("the May 10,  1993 letter").  The letter  stated, in

            relevant part, as follows:

                      having  reviewed the files of the General
                      Command of the  Armed forces  and of  the
                      National Navy, no document whatsoever was
                      found, of authorization for  the boarding
                      of the motor vessel  "DELFIN" on the 13th
                      of October, 1990.

            Robinson  appeals from the district court's summary dismissal

            of  his  second    2255  motion.    On  appeal, he  seeks  to

            introduce   yet  more   new   evidence  to   show  that   the

            certification  of the  Secretary  of  State was  fraudulently

            prepared (i.e., no denial  of registry was ever given  by the

            Colombian  government) and, therefore,  that the  Due Process

            Clause requires that his  conviction and sentence be vacated.

            We affirm.

                      The district  court did  not err in  dismissing the

            motion  without holding  an  evidentiary hearing.  A "   2255

            motion  may   be  denied  without  a  hearing   as  to  those

            allegations which, if accepted as true, entitle the movant to

            no relief, or which need not be accepted as true because they

            state conclusions instead of facts, contradict the record, or

            are 'inherently incredible.'"  Shraiar v. United  States, 736
                                           _______    ______________

            F.2d  817,  818  (1st Cir.  1984)  (citations  omitted).   In

            addition,  "when,  as in  this case,  a petition  for federal

            habeas relief is presented  to the judge who presided  at the

            petitioner's trial,  the judge  is at  liberty to  employ the

                                         -3-

            knowledge   gleaned  during  previous  proceedings  and  make

            findings  based  thereon  without  convening   an  additional

            hearing." United States v. McGill, 11 F.3d 223, 225 (1st Cir.
                      _____________    ______

            1993).  

                      The relevant  evidence  before the  district  court

            when it ruled  upon the   2255  motions consisted of the  May

            10, 1993 letter.   At  most, that letter  indicates that  the

            Colombian authorities never  gave the  Coast Guard  officials

            permission  to board the Delfin.  Even accepting the truth of

            that statement, it does  not entitle Robinson to relief.   In

            this  case,  jurisdiction   was  based  upon   the  Colombian

            government's denial  of registry. The denial  of registry was

            proved by a certification by the Secretary of State.  The May

            10, 1993 letter does not even contradict, much less disprove,

            the statements made in the certification.

                      The document that appellants sought to introduce as

            "Supplemental Pleadings on Appeal" -- a letter dated February

            8,  1996,  in  which  the Colombian  authorities  denied  the

            existence  of  a  General  Rodriquez  at  the  time  that  he

            allegedly denied  registry --  was never before  the district

            court.   The  argument that  it constitutes  newly discovered

            evidence  and  establishes a  violation  of  the Due  Process

            Clause entitling Robinson  to   2255 relief  cannot be raised

            for the  first time on  appeal.  "It  is a bedrock  rule that

            when  a party has not  presented an argument  to the district

                                         -4-

            court, she may not unveil it in the court of appeals." United
                                                                   ______

            States   v.  Slade,  980   F.2d  27,  30   (1st  Cir.  1992).
            ______       _____

            (Appellants' reliance upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) is misplaced

            because  they do  not seek  to supplement  a pleading  but to

            introduce  new  evidence in  support of  a    2255  motion on

            appeal.)  "[A]ppellate  courts retain  the power  to dispense

            with the  raise-or-waive  rule  in order  to  avoid  a  gross

            miscarriage of justice." Slade,  980 F.2d at 31.  This is not
                                     _____

            such  a case,  however.   Robinson has failed  to demonstrate

            that  the  new evidence  "is 'so  compelling as  virtually to

            insure appellant's success.'" Id. at 31.
                                          ___

                      II.  Rojas
                           _____

                      Rojas  pled  guilty  and has  never  contested  the

            validity of his guilty plea.  We note initially that although

            the issue is  not free from  doubt, "the better  view may  be

            that  a  valid  guilty plea,  as  'an  admission  of all  the

            elements  of a  formal  criminal charge,'  admits even  those

            allegations  which  form the  factual  predicate for  federal

            jurisdiction." Valencia  v. United States, 923  F.2d 917, 921
                           ________     _____________

            (1st  Cir. 1991).    We need  not  resolve that  issue  here,

            however, because even if  we assume that Rojas did  not waive

            the  jurisdictional  challenge  by  pleading guilty,  he  has

            failed to show that the district court erred in denying his  

            2255 motion.

                                         -5-

                      In his   2255  motion, Rojas makes the  same claims

            and relies  upon the same new evidence as did Robinson in his

            motion.   The  new evidence  -- the  May 10,  1993 letter  --

            submitted with Rojas'   2255 motion did not disprove, or even

            contradict, denial  of registry,  however.  Accordingly,  the

            district  court  did  not  err in  summarily  dismissing  the

            motion.  Rojas, like Robinson, also seeks relief on the basis

            of the February 8,  1996 letter.  For  the same reasons  that

            the  late-submitted  evidence  did  not  entitle Robinson  to

            relief under   2255, it is of no avail to Rojas.

                      The  district  court's  summary  dismissals  of the

            motions are  affirmed.
                         ________

                                         -6-