Court Opinion

ID: 2964309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:23:50.491457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:36.377832
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        October 4, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1232

                                   DOMONIC SANTINI,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Domonic Santini on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Jorge E.  Pacheco, Acting  United States Attorney, Jose  A. Quiles
            _________________                                  _______________
        Espinosa, Senior  Litigation Counsel, and Edwin  O. Vazquez, Assistant
        ________                                  _________________
        U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Pro  se prisoner Domonic Santini  appeals a
                 __________   ___  __

            district  court order  that summarily  denied his  motion for

            relief from  his sentence under  28 U.S.C.    2255.   We have

            thoroughly  reviewed the  record and  the parties'  briefs on

            appeal and  conclude that  the motion was  properly dismissed

            for the reasons stated in the district court's order.  We add

            that we  find Santini's  claims for  sentencing relief to  be

            patently  meritless.    Accordingly,  the   judgment  of  the

            district court is affirmed.    See Barrett v.  United States,
                              ________     ___ _______     _____________

            965  F.2d 1184,  1195  (1st Cir.  1992)(summary dismissal  is

            proper where   2255 claims are inadequate on their face).

                                         -2-