Court Opinion

ID: 2963678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:51.731757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:29.648723
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        November 8, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1164

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   ANDRES GONZALEZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Andres Gonzalez on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Jay  P. McCloskey,  United States  Attorney, and  F. Mark Terison,
            _________________                                 _______________
        Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    Andres  Gonzalez was  convicted  of
                      ___________

            conspiring to  possess cocaine with intent  to distribute and

            was ultimately sentenced to serve 210 months in jail.  He now

            appeals  from the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence

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

                      Gonzalez claims  that the  district court  erred in

            sentencing him predicated  on a finding that his base offense

            level  should be  calculated on  15-49 kilograms  of cocaine,

            alleging  that  it  found  only  that  he  had  conspired  to

            distribute cocaine in excess of 10 kilograms.  He also claims

            that  his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel

            by  failing  to object  to this  error  at sentencing  and on

            appeal.   The  sentencing transcript  shows clearly  that the

            court found that use of the 15-49 kilogram base offense level

            was proper  because Gonzalez  had conspired to  distribute in

            excess  of  15 kilograms  of  cocaine, and  we  affirmed that

            finding on appeal.  See United States  v. Moreno, 947 F.2d 7,
                                ___ _____________     ______

            8-9 (1st  Cir. 1991).   The sentencing transcript  passage to

            which  Gonzalez refers  is either  a mistranscription  of the

            court's comments or an inadvertent misstatement by the court.

            Because Gonzalez's claim of error  by the court is meritless,

            so, too, is  the claim of  ineffective assistance of  counsel

            based on it.

                      Gonzalez  also   argues  that  the   court  had  no

            jurisdiction to sentence  him on amounts of cocaine he agreed

                                         -2-

            to provide  in negotiations with government  agents since his

            co-conspirator had not participated in those negotiations and

            had not agreed  to provide  such amounts.   He avers  further

            that  his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel

            by  not arguing such lack of jurisdiction at sentencing or on

            direct appeal.   Because these  claims were not  presented to

            the district court, they are not before us and we decline  to

            consider them.  See United States v.  Ocasio-Rivera, 991 F.2d
                            ___ _____________     _____________

            1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993). 

                      Affirmed.
                      _________

             

                                         -3-