Court Opinion

ID: 2963953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:54.648621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:49.145343
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          February 13, 1996     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 94-2239

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                RAFAEL SARIT-ROSARIO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                       [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Selya, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                              _________________________

               Roderick B. O'Connor on brief for appellant.
               ____________________
               Sheldon Whitehouse, United States  Attorney, and Margaret E.
               __________________                               ___________
          Curran and Lawrence D. Gaynor, Assistant United States Attorneys,
          ______     __________________
          on brief for appellee.

                              _________________________

                              _________________________

                    Per Curiam.   Following a two-day  trial, a jury  found
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          defendant-appellant  Rafael  Sarit-Rosario   (Sarit)  guilty   of

          possessing heroin  with intent to  distribute in violation  of 21

          U.S.C.   841(a)(1)  & (b)(1)(C).   The district  court imposed  a

          thirty-month incarcerative sentence.  Sarit appeals.   Discerning

          no substantial question of law or fact, we summarily affirm.  See
                                                                        ___

          1st Cir. R. 27.1.

                    Sarit's brief  purports to advance four  arguments, but

          the  first  two   are  merely  variations  on   the  same  theme.

          Consequently, there are  three issues presented  on appeal.   Two

          are meritless, and  the third   on  which we make no  qualitative

          judgment   is not properly before us.

                    1.  At trial,  Sarit pinned his hopes on  an entrapment

          defense.  Despite neglecting to move for judgment of acquittal at

          the close of all the evidence, Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, he now argues

          that the government  failed to  prove beyond  a reasonable  doubt

          that it had not entrapped him.  He is wrong.

                    Once  an entrapment  defense is  properly in  play, the

          government's proof must  be sufficient to  negate the claim  that

          (a) the government improperly induced the defendant to commit the

          offense, and (b) the defendant lacked a predisposition  to commit

          it.  See  United States v.  Gifford, 17 F.3d  462, 468 (1st  Cir.
               ___  _____________     _______

          1994);  United States v. Rodriguez,  858 F.2d 809,  812 (1st Cir.
                  _____________    _________

          1988).   "[T]he  defense fails  if the  jury is  persuaded beyond

          reasonable doubt that either [element] is lacking in a particular
                                ______

          case."   Rodriguez,  858 F.2d  at 815.   The  mere fact  that the
                   _________

                                          2

          government afforded  the defendant  an opportunity to  commit the

          crime does not prove entrapment.  See United States v. Coady, 809
                                            ___ _____________    _____

          F.2d 119, 122 (1st Cir. 1987).

                    On a  sufficiency challenge,  we must take  the record,

          and  all  reasonable  inferences  therefrom, in  the  light  most

          favorable to the government   and we must resolve all credibility

          conflicts  in the manner most  compatible with the  verdict.  See
                                                                        ___

          United States  v. Valle, ___ F.3d  ___, ___ (1st Cir.  1995) [No.
          _____________     _____

          95-1832, slip op. at 13]; Gifford, 17 F.3d at 467.  Applying this
                                    _______

          standard, appellant's claim collapses.  If the jury believed  the

          version  of  the  transaction  to  which  the  prosecution's  key

          witness, Miguel Morel, testified, there was no entrapment.1

                    2.   Sarit  next challenges  the district  court's jury

          instructions anent entrapment.   This claim, too, is procedurally

          defaulted.   Having  failed  contemporaneously to  object to  the

          instructions,  he can prevail only upon a showing of plain error.

          See  United States v. Weston, 960  F.2d 212, 216 (1st Cir. 1992);
          ___  _____________    ______

          see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 30, 52(b).
          ___ ____

                    Even apart from this obvious procedural default, we see

          no error.  On appeal, Sarit asserts that the instructions did not

          apprise the jury that, in order  to convict, it must find that he

          intended to commit the crimes charged prior to any contact he may

          have  had with government  agents.  This  assertion misstates the

          law.  Taking the charge as a whole, see Weston, 960 F.2d at  216,
                                              ___ ______

                              
          ____________________

               1We note in passing  that Morel's testimony was corroborated
          in important particulars by other evidence in the record.

                                          3

          we  believe that  the  instructions  lay  out and  explicate  the

          elements of the entrapment defense with the requisite clarity and

          completeness.  See, e.g., Gifford, 17 F.3d at 468; Rodriguez, 858
                         ___  ____  _______                  _________

          F.2d at 812.  There was no error.

                    3.   Finally, Sarit asseverates that  his trial counsel

          provided  him with  constitutionally deficient  representation in

          derogation of his Sixth  Amendment rights.  This claim  is raised

          for  the first  time  on appeal.   We  decline  to entertain  it.

          Absent  exceptional  circumstances  (most assuredly  not  present

          here), fact-specific ineffective assistance claims not seasonably

          presented in the trial court cannot be broached on direct appeal,

          but must be pursued collaterally by recourse to 28 U.S.C.   2255.

          See, e.g., United  States v.  Mala, 7 F.3d  1058, 1063 (1st  Cir.
          ___  ____  ______________     ____

          1993) (collecting cases), cert. denied,  114 S. Ct. 1839  (1994).
                                    _____ ______

          Hence, we dismiss this  claim without prejudice to Sarit's  right

          to pursue it collaterally.2

                    We need go  no further.   For the  reasons stated,  the

          judgment below is summarily

                    Affirmed.
                    Affirmed.
                    ________

                              
          ____________________

               2We do  not imply that this claim has any force.  That issue
          is not before us.

                                          4