Court Opinion

ID: 2964579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:52.94039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:05.067031
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2277

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                              LUIS A. RODRIGUEZ-CARMONA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Luis A. Rodriguez-Carmona on brief pro se.
            _________________________
            Guillermo Gil,  United States Attorney,  Warren Vazquez, Assistant
            _____________                            ______________
        United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles Espinosa, Senior Litigation
                                    _______________________
        Counsel, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    March 26, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.    After   a  jury  trial,  appellant  Luis
                 ___________

            Rodriguez-Carmona  was convicted of  aiding and  abetting the

            importation  and   possession  of  heroin   with  intent   to

            distribute in violation of  21 U.S.C.    841(a), 952,  and 18

            U.S.C.     2.    He  was  sentenced  to  sixty-three  months'

            imprisonment   and   five   years  of   supervised   release.

            Proceeding pro se  on appeal, appellant seeks to overturn his
                       ___ __

            conviction  due  to  alleged  prosecutorial   misconduct  and

            ineffective  assistance of  defense counsel.   We  affirm the

            conviction, but  we decline to  reach appellant's ineffective

            assistance of counsel claims.

                                          I.

                 Because appellant does not  challenge the sufficiency of

            the evidence, we provide a neutral summary of the evidence to

            enable  us  to  determine  whether  the  events  about  which

            appellant  complains on appeal  were harmless or prejudicial.

            See,  e.g., United States  v. Morla-Trinidad,  100 F.3d  1, 2
            ___   ____  _____________     ______________

            (1st Cir. 1996);  United States  v. Hardy, 37  F.3d 753,  755
                              _____________     _____

            (1st Cir. 1994).  

                 Acting in  response to  an intelligence alert,  two U.S.

            Customs  inspectors identified  appellant  and Edward  Iba ez

            Cosme (Iba ez), when they arrived at Puerto Rico's Luis Mu oz

            Mar n  International  Airport  on  a  flight   from  Caracas,

            Venezuela.   Upon  inquiring  where  he should  go  to  clear

            customs, Iba ez was taken for a secondary inspection.  During

                                         -2-

            the course of this inspection a customs inspector performed a

            pat-down   search  and  identified   something  concealed  in

            Iba ez's crotch.  When instructed  to lower his pants, Iba ez

            stated, "me  mangaste, you caught me" and  revealed a package

            containing  36  pellets  of  heroin similar  to  those  often

            swallowed by drug smugglers.  Iba ez was immediately arrested

            and  given  the  Miranda  warnings.    He  told  the  customs
                             _______

            inspectors  that he was  travelling alone and  that the drugs

            belonged to him.  

                 After  the  heroin had  been found  on Iba ez,  a senior

            customs  inspector took  appellant to a  secondary inspection

            area for questioning  and examination of his  luggage.  Seven

            Western Union money transfer receipts bearing appellant's and

            Iba ez's names were  found in appellant's bag,  five of which

            had been signed by Iba ez.  Although appellant  had initially

            stated that he was  travelling alone, when questioned further

            he  said that Iba ez had  given him the  receipts.  Appellant

            was also placed under arrest and taken with Iba ez to a local

            hospital for x-rays, which proved negative.1
                                                       1

                 Appellant  and   Iba ez  were  both  indicted   on  drug

            trafficking charges.   Shortly  before trial,  Iba ez entered

            into a plea agreement.  He thereafter became the government's

            star witness  at appellant's trial.   After acknowledging the

                                
            ____________________

               1At the  hospital, Iba ez encountered  a male acquaintance
               1
            and told him that he had been caught drug trafficking.

                                         -3-

            plea  agreement, which  was admitted  into evidence,  and the

            fact that  he could be prosecuted for perjury if he failed to

            tell the  truth, Iba ez  testified at  some length  about his

            past criminal  exploits  -  without  objection  from  defense

            counsel.2  
                    2

                 Iba ez  then described  two smuggling  ventures that  he

            claimed to  have undertaken  on appellant's  behalf.  In  the

            first  such venture, Iba ez and a friend went to Venezuela to

            procure  a heroin sample for appellant.  As the return flight

            to Puerto Rico was  delayed, appellant wired Iba ez  money so

            that he and his friend could  fly to Puerto Rico first class.

            Iba ez identified one of the  Western Union receipts that had

            been found  in appellant's  luggage  as the  receipt for  the

            funds that had been used for the return plane tickets on that

            occasion.   He claimed that he delivered 10 pellets of heroin

            to appellant as a result of this trip.  Iba ez testified that

            the heroin that he  delivered to appellant was supplied  by a

                                
            ____________________

               2The  prosecutor first elicited  Iba ez's criminal record,
               2
            which  included  convictions for  theft  of  a toolbox,  auto
            theft, and contempt.   In an effort  to minimize the  risk of
            impeachment   on   cross-examination,  the   prosecutor  next
            required Iba ez to describe  his criminal activities that had
            not resulted in  convictions.  Iba ez then  testified that he
            had transported drugs to Spain via Puerto  Rico the preceding
            November  and  that  he  had  participated  in  an  elaborate
            escapade  which  included  a hold-up  of  a  gas  station, an
            ensuing  shoot-out,  hit-and-run, carjacking,  and automobile
            crash,  after  which Iba ez and his cohorts eluded the police
            by escaping through a waterfall.  While the trial judge twice
            convened bench conferences to  question the relevance of this
            testimony, defense counsel raised no objection to it.     

                                         -4-

            Colombian,  Cesar  Augusto Buendia,  and  that  the remaining

            Western Union receipts found in appellant's luggage reflected

            drug payments that appellant had made to Buendia.3  
                                                             3

                 With regard  to  the  second  smuggling  venture,  which

            resulted  in  the arrests  of  Iba ez  and appellant,  Iba ez

            testified that he recruited his cousin Jose Iba ez  (Jose) to

            assist  in carrying the  drugs but that  Jose did not  have a

            passport.  As a result all three men - appellant, Iba ez, and

            Jose - travelled to  Connecticut to secure passports so  that

            they could travel to  Venezuela and return carrying  drugs to

            Puerto Rico.4   Because  Iba ez informed the  passport agency
                        4

            that the  three were  scheduled to  travel to  Venezuela very

            soon, the agency  issued the  men passports on  the very  day

            that  they  applied for  them.   The  three then  returned to

            Puerto Rico and left for Venezuela on March 22, 1995.

                 Iba ez  related that after  staying in Venezuela briefly

            the  three men travelled to Colombia and checked into a hotel

            in  accordance  with  the  instructions  of  their  supplier,

            Buendia.    Eventually,  Buendia  caused  the  heroin  to  be

            delivered to appellant's hotel  room, where Iba ez washed the

            pellets and  divided them  into two  packages.   According to

                                
            ____________________

               3Iba ez described how appellant  sent him to Western Union
               3
            on multiple occasions to wire money to Buendia. 

               4Iba ez  testified  that it  was  necessary  to travel  to
               4
            Connecticut, where Jose had been born, to secure Jose's birth
            certificate for his passport application.

                                         -5-

            Iba ez, appellant  was present when the  heroin was delivered

            and while  he  was  packaging  it.    Iba ez  testified  that

            appellant had business at  his drug point in Puerto  Rico, so

            he and Iba ez decided to return there with the heroin.   Jose

            was  left behind  to return  later with  two pairs  of tennis

            shoes that were being loaded with heroin.  

                 Iba ez  testified  that, initially,  Iba ez body-carried

            one  package  with  20  pellets of  heroin,  while  appellant

            carried a  similar package with 16 pellets.  Appellant became

            scared  after their  luggage was  searched at  the Venezuelan

            border, so  he  instructed Iba ez  to  carry all  the  heroin

            thereafter.  The two flew to Caracas and from there to Puerto

            Rico  without  incident.    Upon  arriving  in  Puerto  Rico,

            appellant  instructed Iba ez  to go  up front  to be  checked

            first.  Iba ez testified that although he initially  told the

            authorities that the drugs were his, in fact they belonged to

            appellant. 

                  Iba ez's  testimony was  corroborated by  the passports

            and  plane  tickets  of  appellant  and  Iba ez,  which  were

            admitted  into   evidence,  and  the  testimony   of  Richard

            Herdmann, a  senior customs  supervisor.   Herdmann testified

            that  after Iba ez had been found with the heroin, he noticed

            that  the  defendants'  passports  and  plane   tickets  bore

                                         -6-

            sequential numbers  interrupted by  one digit.5   As Herdmann
                                                          5

            was responsible  for  determining whether  any other  persons

            were  involved  in drug  trafficking,  he  made inquiries  to

            determine who  had been issued the passport  and plane ticket

            with the intervening numbers.   Herdmann testified that these

            items had been  issued to Jose, but  that he had not  boarded

            the plane in Venezuela.6    
                                   6

                 Appellant  did  not  testify  at his  trial.    Although

            defense counsel  had announced that Jose  would be testifying

            in appellant's  defense, the  record indicates that  Jose was

            arrested  at the outset of appellant's trial and charged with

            the same  crime as appellant  (i.e., aiding and  abetting the

            importation of heroin), and conspiring to import heroin. Jose

            was  never called as a  witness.7  Defense  counsel relied on
                                            7

            excerpts  from  the testimony  of  the  customs officers  and

            Iba ez  to argue  that Iba ez  acted alone  in  the smuggling

            endeavor  and that  appellant  was a  legitimate  businessman

                                
            ____________________

               5Iba ez's   passport  bore  the   number  140533715  while
               5
            appellant's passport bore  number 140533717.  Both  passports
            had  been issued in Connecticut on March 3, 1995.  Similarly,
            Iba ez's  plane ticket for  his return flight  to Puerto Rico
            bore a number  ending in 10,  while appellant's plane  ticket
            ended in 12.   

               6Herdmann also ascertained  that Jose's passport  had been
               6
            issued  at the same time and place  as those of appellant and
            Iba ez. 

               7It is undisputed that Jose was tried after  appellant and
               7
            acquitted on all  charges. See United States v.  Jose Iba ez-
                                       ___ _____________     ____________
            Maldonado, #95-CR-195(SEC). 
            _________

                                         -7-

            unaware of the drug venture.  The jury rejected this defense.

            Remaining facts  will  be discussed  in  the context  of  the

            arguments that appellant raises.      

                                         II.

                 On appeal, appellant asserts that the prosecutor pursued

            a   "carefully  tailored"  strategy   that  was  designed  to

            impermissibly  bolster  the credibility  of  the government's

            chief  witness  (Iba ez),   while  simultaneously   depriving

            appellant  of his  own star  witness (Jose).  Consistent with

            this general  theme, appellant  contends that  his conviction

            should be reversed on three grounds.  First, appellant argues

            that certain remarks that the prosecutor made in his rebuttal

            argument improperly vouched for the credibility of Iba ez and

            expressed the  prosecutor's personal opinion  about how  drug

            traffickers  work.    Second,  appellant  contends  that  the

            prosecutor violated his Sixth  Amendment right to  compulsory

            process by arresting Jose  solely to cause him to  invoke his

            privilege   against  self-incrimination,   thereby  depriving

            appellant of his testimony.  Finally, appellant contends that

            he  was  deprived  of  the effective  assistance  of  counsel

            because  his trial  counsel  failed to  move to  suppress the

            evidence seized by the customs officers and further failed to

                                         -8-

            protect  appellant's  right to  compulsory process  by taking

            steps to ameliorate the government's arrest of Jose.  

                 We first examine the prosecutor's conduct, mindful  that

            because defense counsel did not object to it below, we review

            only for plain  error. See, e.g., United  States v. Sullivan,
                                   ___  ____  ______________    ________

            85 F.3d  743, 751 (1st Cir.  1996).  This means  that we must

            view the prosecutor's  conduct in the  context of the  entire

            trial  and that we may reverse only  if we conclude that, "'a

            miscarriage of  justice would  otherwise result,'" or  that a

            plain error "'seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or

            public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" United States v.
                                                         _____________

            Olano, 507  U.S. 725,  736 (1993)(citations omitted);  United
            _____                                                  ______

            States  v. Josleyn,  99  F.3d  1182,  1197 (1st  Cir.  1996).
            ______     _______

            Appellant has failed to meet this "hard-to-satisfy standard."

            United States v. Taylor, 54 F.3d 967, 977 (1st Cir. 1995).
            _____________    ______

                                         III.

            The Prosecutor's Rebuttal
            _________________________

                 In  cross-examining  Iba ez, defense  counsel emphasized

            the  fact that Iba ez had first told the authorities that the

            drugs  belonged  to him  alone.    Defense counsel's  closing

            argument  implied  that  Iba ez  had  changed  his  story  to

            incriminate appellant only after he executed the government's
                                       _____

            plea agreement.8  Appellant  now contends that the prosecutor
                           8

                                
            ____________________

               8Referring to Iba ez, defense counsel argued that, "it was
               8
            not until  the  government made  a  plea agreement  with  him
            [that] he reverted (sic) his testimony."

                                         -9-

            engaged  in  improper witness-vouching  when he  attempted to

            rebut defense counsel's insinuation  by referring to the plea

            agreement as follows:

                      ....  that piece  of  evidence  ...  will
                      reflect  that  definitely Mr.  Iba ez was
                      fully debriefed and examined prior to the
                      signing  of the plea  agreement.   So the
                                                         ______
                      government    already     heard,    knew,
                      _________________________________________
                      investigated,   and    corroborated   the
                      _________________________________________
                      information  given by Iba ez prior to the
                      _________________________________________
                      signing of  the plea agreement  and prior
                      ______________________________
                      to bringing him here to  testify [to] the
                      facts to you.  Simply it did not become a
                      magic  act as  presented by  defendant in
                      saying that after the plea  agreement was
                      made then he changed his -- his  version.
                      No. 

                      These things  are investigated thoroughly
                      _________________________________________
                      first before  even thinking of  signing a
                      _________________________________________
                      plea   agreement,  corroborated   by  the
                      _________________________________________
                      agency  and also  investigated.   So read
                      _______________________________
                      the totality  of the plea  agreement, and
                      you will see the terms of it.  Just don't
                      take  a word  of mouth  explanation. Just
                      read   the   evidence.   It's  there   in
                      evidence.    So  you will  know  how this
                      takes place, and that will assist  you in
                      reaching the truth in your deliberations.
                      (emphasis supplied). 

                 "[A] prosecutor  may not  imply that the  government has

            inculpatory  information that  is not  in evidence."   United
                                                                   ______

            States v. Manning, 23 F.3d 570, 573 (1st Cir. 1994)(citations
            ______    _______

            omitted).   Comments like, "the government  ... investigated,

            and  corroborated the  information given  by Iba ez"  and the

            remaining  language   emphasized   above  could   fairly   be

            understood  to imply  that the  government had  an additional

            source of  information from  which it learned  Iba ez's story

                                         -10-

            even  before he  agreed to  cooperate.   We agree  that these

            remarks  crossed the  line  into improper  vouching, and  the

            government essentially  concedes as much.   See United States
                                                        ___ _____________

            v.  Tajjedini, 996  F.2d 1278, 1284  (1st Cir.  1993) (noting
                _________

            that it is improper for a prosecutor to even "seem to rely on

            matters not in evidence").

                 Appellant  next assails  the  following  portion of  the

            prosecutor's rebuttal, which was  made in response to defense

            counsel's suggestion that appellant's apparent involvement in

            the crime was an accident:

                      Ladies  and gentlemen ... I submit to you
                      [that  there  are] too  many coincidences
                      for this to be a  mere accident.  This is
                                                        _______
                      how  drug  traffickers  work.    Some are
                      _____________________________
                      smarter  than others  and will  tell you,
                      listen, they almost caught me.  You carry
                      the drugs.   Keep -- keep up  front.  I'm
                      going  to stay  in the  back ...  in case
                      something  happens. That's  what happened
                      here:    a   very    shrewd   trafficker,
                      Rodriguez, putting the other guy up front
                      so  if he  gets  caught he  gets the  ...
                      problem. (emphasis supplied).

            Appellant  contends that  the  comment, "[t]his  is how  drug

            traffickers work"  was an improper statement  of opinion that

            was not supported by the evidence.9  We   agree   that   this
                                              9

            comment  evinces a poor choice of words.  While the statement

            may have been construed as a simple rhetorical invitation  to

                                
            ____________________

               9Appellant argues that whether or not drug traffickers use
               9
            "mules"  to  avoid apprehension  in  the  way the  prosecutor
            claimed that Iba ez was used here was a subject that required
            an expert opinion before the prosecutor could comment on it.

                                         -11-

            find  appellant  guilty  based  on   Iba ez's  testimony,  it

            arguably  implied  that  appellant  was  guilty  because  his

            alleged conduct, as described  by Iba ez, was consistent with

            the  prosecutor's experience  with  other  drug  traffickers.

            Such  an implication  is, of  course, improper.   See,  e.g.,
                                                              ___   ____

            Tajjedini,  996 F.2d  at  1284 ("it  is  ... improper  for  a
            _________

            prosecutor  to insert  his own  credibility or  opinions into

            argument").   

                 Nevertheless,  we  do  not  think  that   these  remarks

            constitute plain error,  for the record  suggests that it  is

            highly unlikely that  appellant was prejudiced by them.   See
                                                                      ___

            Olano,  507 U.S.  at 735  (specific showing  of prejudice  is
            _____

            normally required  to establish plain error).10   To be sure,
                                                         10

            the government's case hinged  upon the credibility of Iba ez,

            and  the government could ill afford  to vouch improperly for

            him.    Nevertheless, both  of  the  remarks challenged  here

            appear to be instances of  accidental overkill rather than  a

            deliberate attempt  to mislead the jury.   Iba ez's testimony

                                
            ____________________

               10The  "plain error"  test requires  that we  consider the
               10
            prosecutor's  remarks   in  light   of  all  the   "attendant
            circumstances,"  including  "(1)  the  extent  to  which  the
            prosecutor's conduct is recurrent  and/or deliberate, (2) the
            extent to which the  trial judge's instructions insulated the
            jury  against,  or  palliated,   the  possibility  of  unfair
            prejudice, and (3) the  overall strength of the prosecution's
            case,  with  particular regard  to  the  likelihood that  any
            prejudice might have affected  the jury's judgment."  Taylor,
                                                                  ______
            54  F.3d  at  977 (citation  omitted).    The  weight of  the
            evidence  of guilt or innocence is  the most important factor
            in this  analysis. See  Arrieta-Agressot v. United  States, 3
                               ___  ________________    ______________
            F.3d 525, 528 (1st Cir. 1993).

                                         -12-

            was,  in  fact,  corroborated   by  the  plane  tickets,  the

            passports, and the Western Union receipts that had been found

            in  appellant's  luggage.    We think  it  likely  that  this

            evidence   was  the   outside  corroboration  to   which  the

            prosecutor  referred  in  his  remarks  concerning  the  plea

            agreement  and that the jury understood as much.  Finally, we

            note that the trial judge repeatedly instructed the jury that

            the arguments of counsel do not constitute  evidence and that

            its  decision was to  be based  on the  evidence alone.   The

            record  indicates  that  the  jury  returned  three questions

            before  reaching  its   verdict,  thus  indicating   that  it

            carefully deliberated  over the elements of  the offenses and

            did  not simply  accept  the prosecutor's  arguments at  face

            value.11   We think this  sound evidence that the jury obeyed
                  11

            the court's instructions to resolve the case on  the evidence

            and was not seduced to convict on speculation prompted by the

            prosecutor's rebuttal.   Accordingly, we  are confident  that

            the prosecutor's improper remarks did not so poison the trial

            as to require reversal for plain error.12
                                                   12

                                
            ____________________

               11The jury  requested a  copy of the  court's instructions
               11
            and  the relevant statutes.  It also requested that the court
            clearly  define the  term  "possession" and  a  copy of  that
            portion  of  Iba ez's  testimony   wherein  he  alleged  that
            appellant had instructed him to carry all of the heroin. 

               12Appellant  also contends that  the prosecutor improperly
               12
            elicited evidence of Iba ez's prior bad  acts under the guise
            of  fulfilling  the  plea  agreement's  requirement  that  he
            testify truthfully and  that the trial judge should  not have
            admitted  this testimony.  See  note 2, supra.  We agree that
                                       ___          _____

                                         -13-

            The Arrest of Jose   
            __________________

                 Appellant next contends that the prosecutor violated his

            Sixth Amendment right to  compulsory process by arresting his

            star  witness, Jose Iba ez, solely  as a ploy  to prevent him

            from  testifying  for  the  defense.    In  a  related  vein,

            appellant contends that  defense counsel rendered ineffective

            assistance  because he failed to  object to Jose's arrest and

            failed  to seek a court  order that granted  Jose immunity or

            required that the government do so.  Both  claims rely on the

            following  additional facts,  some  of which  are beyond  the

            scope  of  the  record  but  are  conceded  as  true  by  the

            government.13    
                       13

                 It appears  that Jose arrived in Puerto  Rico three days

            after  appellant and  Iba ez were  arrested and  that he  was

            immediately   questioned   and   released  by   the   customs

            authorities, who found  no drugs.   A few  months later,  and

            approximately eleven  days  before appellant's  trial  began,

            Iba ez agreed to plead guilty and testify for the government.

            Shortly thereafter, defense counsel announced that Jose would

                                
            ____________________

            much  of this evidence might have been excluded.  But defense
            counsel raised  no objection to  its admission.   Instead, he
            relied on  it as grounds for  attacking Iba ez's credibility.
            As Iba ez's criminal exploits were just as likely to make the
            jury disbelieve  him as otherwise, we cannot say admission of
            this evidence was plain error.

               13These  facts pertain  to appellant's  compulsory process
               13
            claim  and  one  of  his ineffective  assistance  of  counsel
            claims.  The latter is discussed in part IV, infra.
                                                         _____

                                         -14-

            be called  as a witness  for the defense.14   As noted above,
                                                     14

            Jose was arrested on the first day of appellant's trial, when

            he arrived at the courthouse to testify for appellant.

                 The record discloses that after announcing that Jose had

            been arrested,  the Assistant  United States Attorney  (AUSA)

            immediately agreed to make  Jose available to defense counsel

            to interview and call  as a witness.   He also observed  that

            Jose would  probably reevaluate with his  own counsel whether

            he wished  to testify.  (Tr. 9-11).    Defense counsel  never

            objected to Jose's  arrest.  Instead,  he proceeded with  the

            trial and made no complaints about a violation of appellant's

            right  to compulsory  process.   Appellant alleges  that "the

            scuffle created  by" Jose's arrest prevented  defense counsel

            from calling him as a witness.  He has submitted an affidavit

            from his trial counsel to support this assertion.15
                                                             15

                                
            ____________________

               14This  is  apparent  from  defense  counsel's  motion  to
               14
            continue  the  trial  (original  paper  #28).    That  motion
            indicates that  defense counsel  first interviewed  a witness
            who  could provide  exculpatory  testimony on  June 7,  1995,
            i.e., five days after  Iba ez executed his plea agreement  on
            June 2, 1995.  We presume that the witness identified  in the
            motion is Jose.

               15Defense  counsel averred that  Jose could  have provided
               15
            material, exculpatory testimony to the effect that he did not
            observe any  drug-related activities by  appellant during the
            time  that they spent together  in Venezuela.   Once Jose was
            arrested,  counsel  believed  that  his  ethical  obligations
            prohibited  him  from  contacting  Jose until  after  he  was
            properly represented by  counsel.  Counsel swore  that due to
            the fact that he was "heavily engaged" in appellant's defense
            during the course of the two-day trial, it was impossible for
            him to ascertain the  status of Jose's case or  to coordinate
            with  Jose's  counsel  to   address  Jose's  Fifth  Amendment

                                         -15-

                 Appellant now complains  that the  only explanation  for

            the timing  of the arrest is  that it was  designed to compel

            Jose to  invoke his privilege  against self-incrimination and

            thereby deprive appellant of his testimony.16  At the  outset
                                                       16

            we  are compelled to observe  that this claim  was not raised

            below.    A strong  argument  can be  made that  it  has been

            waived.   Cf. United  States v.  Theresius Filippi, 918  F.2d
                      __  ______________     _________________

            244, 246  (1st Cir.  1990)(holding defendant waived  right to

            compulsory  process when defense  counsel decided  to proceed

            with trial without material witness).   But as the government

            does not  make  this argument,  we  will give  appellant  the

            benefit  of the doubt and assume the claim was forfeited, not

            waived. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 733-34 (discussing distinction
                    ___ _____

            between  "waiver"  and "forfeiture").    This  benefit is  of

            little moment, for the record, even as supplemented, does not

            establish  that the  arrest of  Jose was  a plain  error that

            violated appellant's right to compulsory process.    

                 In  order  to  make out  a  violation  of  the right  to

            compulsory  process,  the  appellant  must  show  that  "some

            contested  act  or omission  (1)  can  be  attributed to  the

            sovereign and  (2) causes  the loss  or erosion  of testimony

                                
            ____________________

            concerns.  Counsel's affidavit  concludes with  the assertion
            that "these circumstances prevented  me from calling ... Jose
            ...  as a witness despite  the fact that  his testimony could
            ha[ve] changed the outcome of the trial." 

               16Appellant says that this  conclusion is bolstered by the
               16
            fact that Jose was ultimately acquitted on all charges. 

                                         -16-

            which  is both (3) material to  the case and (4) favorable to

            the accused." United  States v. Hoffman, 832 F.2d  1299, 1303
                          ______________    _______

            (1st Cir. 1987).  "[C]ausation is an essential building block

            in  ...[this] edifice,"  id.    It  is  on  this  block  that
                                     ___

            appellant's claim stumbles.   For while it is clear  that the

            government  is responsible  for  Jose's arrest,  and we  will

            assume, for  the sake  of argument  only, that his  testimony

            would have  been material and exculpatory,  the record simply

            does  not  show that  the arrest  caused  the loss  of Jose's

            testimony.  Defense  counsel never subpoenaed  Jose.  He  did

            not  even ascertain  that, if  subpoenaed, Jose  would indeed

            invoke   the  Fifth   Amendment  and   decline   to  testify.

            Consequently,  it  is not  at  all clear  that  Jose's arrest

            actually rendered his testimony unavailable.  Accordingly, we

            cannot say that this arrest was a "plain error" that violated

            appellant's right  to compulsory process.   Cf. United States
                                                        ___ _____________

            v.  Arboleda,  929  F.2d  858, 868  (1st  Cir.  1991)(holding
                ________

            appellant failed to  establish government violated  his right

            of access to a  witness where defense counsel  never formally

            attempted to meet with witness).

                                         IV.

            Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims
            ________________________________________

                 Appellant  argues that  defense counsel  was ineffective

            because he  failed to object to the arrest of Jose and failed

            to seek a court  order that either granted Jose  use immunity

                                         -17-

            or  required  that  the government  do  so.   Appellant  also

            maintains that  defense counsel  erred by failing  to file  a

            motion  to  suppress  the  evidence  seized  by  the  customs

            inspectors. 

                 As  a  general  rule,   this  court  does  not  consider

            ineffective  assistance of  counsel claims  on direct  appeal

            unless the critical facts  are not in dispute and  the record

            is sufficiently developed to permit reasoned consideration of

            the claim.  See, e.g.,   United States v. Collins, 60 F.3d 4,
                        ___  ____    _____________    _______

            7  n. 1 (1st Cir.  1995); United States  v. Natanel, 938 F.2d
                                      _____________     _______

            302, 309 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1079 (1992).
                                      _____ ______

            We  do not  think  that the  present  record is  sufficiently

            developed  to allow  us to dispose  of the  foregoing issues.

            Accordingly,  we  decline  to  reach  appellant's ineffective

            assistance  of counsel claims in the  context of this appeal.

            Appellant  remains free to raise these issues in a motion for

            post-conviction  relief under 28  U.S.C.   2255.   See, e.g.,
                                                               ___  ____

            United States v.  Mala, 7  F.3d 1058, 1063  (1st Cir.  1993),
            _____________     ____

            cert.  denied,  511  U.S.  1086  (1994).    The  judgment  of
            _____  ______

            conviction is otherwise affirmed.
                                    ________

                                         -18-