Court Opinion

ID: 2964187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:50.922372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:52.142455
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 17, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2011

                                 RUBEN SANTANA-DIAZ,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

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

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Cyr and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Ruben Santana-Diaz on brief pro se.
            __________________
            Guillermo  Gil, Acting  United States  Attorney, John  C.  Keeney,
            ______________                                   ________________
        Acting Assistant Attorney General, Theresa M.B. Van Vliet,  Chief, and
                                           ______________________
        Lena Watkins, Attorney, Criminal Division, Narcotic and Dangerous Drug
        ____________
        Section, U.S. Department of Justice, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Ruben  Santana Diaz appeals  from the
                      __________

            district court's dismissal of his petition  under 28 U.S.C.  

            2255.  We affirm for the reasons given briefly below.

                      1.   Santana did not raise his claim that the trial

            court's failure  to order  identification or production  of a

            confidential informant  prejudiced his  ability to assert  an

            entrapment  defense in his direct appeal.   See United States
                                                        ___ _____________

            v. Panet-Collazo, 960 F.2d 256, 259 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,
               _____________                                ____________

            506 U.S. 876 (1992).  Failure to raise a constitutional claim

            on  direct  appeal  ordinarily  bars  raising  the  issue  on

            collateral attack  unless the  petitioner can show  cause for

            the failure and actual prejudice from the alleged trial court

            error.   See Knight v.  United States, 37 F.3d  769, 774 (1st
                     ___ ______     _____________

            Cir. 1994).  

                      As  cause, Santana asserts  his appellate counsel's

            ineffective assistance of counsel.   However, as the district

            court  correctly  concluded  in  resolving  that  issue,  the

            failure to  obtain the confidential  informant's testimony at

            trial  did  not  prejudice  Santana's ability  to  assert  an

            entrapment defense.   Even assuming that  the informant would

            have  testified as  Santana suggests,  at most  his testimony

            would  have established  only one  element of  the entrapment

            defense -- that the government induced Santana to participate

            in  the drug  deal  in question.    To assert  an  entrapment

            defense, however, Santana also had to establish at trial that

            he  was  not predisposed  to commit  his  crime.   See United
                                                               ___ ______

                                         -2-

            States v. Panet-Collazo, 960 F.2d 256,  259 (1st Cir.), cert.
            ______    _____________                                 _____

            denied, 506 U.S. 876 (1992).    As we held on  direct appeal,
            ______

            he never did so.  Id. at 259-60.  
                              ___

                      2.  Santana  bears the burden  of showing that  the

            court vindictively sentenced him  for exercising his right to

            a jury trial, as he claims.   United States v. Mena-Robles, 4
                                          _____________    ___________

            F.3d 1026, 1037  (1st Cir.  1993), cert. denied,  114 S.  Ct.
                                               ____________

            1550 (1994).   He  has not  pointed to  any statement by  the

            district court or any other evidence suggesting that there is

            a "reasonable likelihood" that he received a harsher sentence

            than he otherwise  would have because he went to  trial so as

            to trigger a  presumption of  vindictiveness.  See  id.   The
                                                           ________

            mere  fact  that  co-defendants, who  pled  guilty,  received

            lesser sentences does  not show that it  is reasonably likely

            that Santana  was vindictively sentenced.   Id.   Hence,  the
                                                        ___

            claim of vindictive sentencing fails.  Id.  
                                                   ___

                      Affirmed.
                      _________

                                         -3-