Court Opinion

ID: 2963939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:45.772122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:48.853788
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        February 22, 1996       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1246

                                JOSEPH ROBERT GLIDDEN,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1372

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                JOSEPH ROBERT GLIDDEN,

                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before
                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________
                                 ____________________

            Joseph R. Glidden on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Jay P.  McCloskey, United  States Attorney, and  F. Mark  Terison,
            _________________                                ________________
        Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Joseph  Robert Glidden appeals the district
                 __________

            court's dismissal of  his second motion filed pursuant  to 28

            U.S.C.   2255.  Glidden filed identical copies of this second

            motion in each of his two underlying district court  criminal

            cases.  The district court entered a judgment of dismissal in

            each  case and  we have  consolidated Glidden's  appeals from

            each judgment.

                 We have reviewed the parties'  briefs and the record  on

            appeal.  We agree  with the district court's conclusion  that

            Glidden  has abused  the  writ, essentially  for the  reasons

            stated  in the magistrate-judge's  recommended decision dated

            December 15, 1994.  We,  therefore, affirm the district court
                                                ______

            judgments  that entered on January  30, 1995, in  each of the

            two  underlying district court  cases, dismissing appellant's

            second  motion, filed  pursuant to  28 U.S.C.    2255,  as an

            abuse of the writ.  We add only the following.

            1.   On appeal,  Glidden  seeks to  pursue  a claim  that  he

            received ineffective assistance  of appellate counsel  due to

            Attorney Joseph L. Ferris' abandonment of his direct criminal

            appeals  that were  dismissed  for want  of prosecution  when

            counsel  failed to file a  brief.  United  States v. Glidden,
                                               ______________    _______

            Nos. 90-1611; 90-1612, (1st Cir. Sept. 27, 1991) (unpublished

            order of dismissal).  This claim was, at best, presented only

            in skeletal form in Glidden's  second   2255 motion.   In any

            event,  in  his objections  to  the magistrate's  recommended

                                         -2-

            decision,  Glidden  did  not   raise  any  objection  to  the

            magistrate's  failure to  address  this claim  and, thus,  is

            precluded  from obtaining  appellate  review of  this  claim.

            Keating  v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 848 F.2d 271,
            _______     __________________________________

            275 (1st Cir. 1988) (per  curiam) (concluding that only those

            issues fairly  raised by  the objections to  the magistrate's

            report  are subject to review in the district court and those

            not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal); see
                                                                      ___

            also Henley Drilling Co. v. McGee, 36 F.3d 143, 151 (1st Cir.
            ____ ___________________    _____

            1994) (rejecting the contention that a litigant need not file

            an  objection to a magistrate's failure to address a claim to
                                            _______

            preserve appellate review).

                 Further,   even  assuming  the  claim  was  sufficiently

            developed below  beyond skeletal form  in this second    2255

            motion and then sufficiently  preserved for appeal, i.e., not

            waived  by failing  to  raise it  in  his objections  to  the

            magistrate's  recommendation,  it  is  not  a  miscarriage of

            justice to fail to consider this claim in this second    2255

            motion  as   Glidden  had   both  sufficient  knowledge   and

            opportunity  to timely raise this  claim in his  first   2255

            motion.  Glidden was  informed in April 1992 that,  if he was

            claiming  that  he  had  not authorized  Attorney  Ferris  to

            abandon  his direct  criminal appeals,  he should  inform the

            district  court of this contention  via a    2255 motion and,

            although  by  this  time  Glidden had  appointed  counsel  --

                                         -3-

            Attorney  O'Brian --  to represent  him on  his first    2255

            motion  in the  district court,  Glidden  did not  raise this

            claim of Attorney Ferris' alleged unauthorized abandonment of

            appeals among the two new claims submitted in September  1992

            to the  district court  as an amendment  to his first    2255

            motion.

            2.   On appeal,  Glidden also  seeks to  raise for the  first

            time new grounds to support a claim of ineffective assistance

            of  counsel  with  respect  to  Attorney  James  Horton,  who

            represented  Glidden  at  his  change  of  plea  and  at  his

            sentencing.   Having failed  to present these  grounds in the

            district court,  Glidden is  precluded from raising  them for

            the  first time on appeal.   Johnston v.  Holiday Inns, Inc.,
                                         ________     __________________

            595 F.2d 890, 894 (1st Cir. 1979).  No miscarriage of justice

            will occur if we decline to address them.  Indeed, all appear

            meritless.

                 The judgments of the district court are affirmed.
                                                         _________

                                         -4-