Court Opinion

ID: 2963532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:11:33.965723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:41.743550
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                             
                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2070 

                                  PETER M. CUMMING,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Peter M. Cumming on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Jay   P.  McCloskey,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Margaret  D.
            ___________________                                   ____________
        McGaughey, Assistant United States  Attorney, on Memorandum of Law  in
        _________
        Support of Motion for Summary Disposition, for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    August 4, 1995
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Peter M. Cumming appeals pro  se from
                      __________                             ___  __

            the district court's  dismissal of his motion  to vacate, set

            aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.   2255.  The

            government has moved for summary disposition, and Cumming has

            filed an  opposition and a  brief.   We grant the  motion and

            affirm.

                      The present   2255 motion is Cumming's second.  The

            first such motion -- alleging double jeopardy and ineffective

            assistance  of trial and  appellate counsel --  was dismissed

            without  prejudice because  Cumming's appeal  from conviction

            was  pending in  this court.   Before  the direct  appeal was

            decided, Cumming filed  this   2255  motion alleging that  18

            U.S.C.    4111 was unconstitutional  and had deprived  him of

            equal protection  of the laws.   Cumming also moved  to amend

            the second    2255  motion to  assert  a claim  that a  third

            attorney  involved  in  his  case  had  rendered  ineffective

            assistance.  Subsequently, Cumming's conviction and  sentence

            were affirmed,  United States  v. Cumming,  No. 93-1960  (1st
                            _____________     _______

            Cir. Aug. 9, 1994), and shortly thereafter the district court

            adopted a  magistrate-judge's recommendation  that (1) the   

            2255 equal protection  claim be dismissed because  it clearly

            lacked  merit, and  (2) the  motion to  amend to  add another

            ineffectiveness  of counsel claim be denied because the first

               2255  motion  had  been  dismissed  without  prejudice  to

            Cumming's  right to  refile  all  his ineffectiveness  claims

            after the decision in his direct appeal.

                      In deciding  Cumming's direct  appeal, we  rejected

            the  claim that his  prosecution for unlawful  importation of

            controlled   substances  was   barred   by  double   jeopardy

            principles because of Cumming's British conviction on related

            charges.1  We  also decided that Cumming could  not claim any

            violation of  18 U.S.C.    4111 because those  provisions are

            only  applicable  to  offenders  transferred from  a  foreign

            country for the  express purpose of completing  the execution

            of a foreign  sentence in the  United States.   18 U.S.C.    

            4100(a), 4101(j); United States v. Gambino, 729 F. Supp. 954,
                              _____________    _______

            968  (S.D.N.Y. 1990),  aff'd, 968  F.2d 227  (2d Cir.  1992).
                                   _____

            Cumming,  slip op. at  4.  It is  not disputed that Cumming's
            _______

            return  to the United States  was voluntary, and not pursuant

            to the above treaty provisions.

                      As  an  initial  matter  we  note   that  Cumming's

            appellate brief and answer to the government's motion make no

            attempt  whatsoever to articulate  an argument in  support of

            his equal protection ground, thereby waiving it.  Martinez v.
                                                              ________

            Colon, 54  F.3d 980, 990 (1st Cir. 1995).  Even if we were to
            _____

                                
            ____________________

            1.  In 1992, Cumming was approved for  transfer to the United
            States  to complete  the execution  of  his British  sentence
            under treaty provisions  codified at 18 U.S.C.     4100-4111,
            but declined the transfer.  Cumming was released from British
            custody in February  1993 after serving the  complete foreign
            sentence.

                                         -3-

            address  that  claim,  it  is  clear  that  Cumming's  double

            jeopardy premise has simply been  reworked under the guise of

            equal protection.  That claim, at bottom, seeks relief from a

            sentence which Cumming believes constitutes double punishment

            for  the  same  offenses.    But,  we  have already  resolved

            Cumming's  double jeopardy argument and issues disposed of on

            direct  appeal may  not be  reviewed in  a subsequent    2255

            proceeding  absent an  intervening  change in  the  law or  a

            showing  that manifest injustice would otherwise result.  See
                                                                      ___

            Singleton  v. United  States, 26  F.3d  234, 240  (1st Cir.),
            _________     ______________

            cert. denied,  115 S. Ct.  517 (1994); Campbell  v. Blodgett,
            _____ ______                           ________     ________

            982 F.2d  1321, 1326 (9th  Cir. 1992) ("A petitioner  may not

            create a different ground merely by alleging different facts,

            asserting different legal theories,  or couching his argument

            in different language."); see also Reed v. Farley, 114 S. Ct.
                                      ___ ____ ____    ______

            2291, 2297 (1994).  Nothing  indicates that any exception  to

            that rule applies here.

                      In addition, we find no abuse  of discretion by the

            district  court in denying  the motion to  amend, but decline

            the government's invitation to decide the merits of Cumming's

            ineffective assistance  of counsel  claims.   This court  has

            generally adhered to the view  that such assessments are best

            made by the district judge in the first instance.  Knight  v.
                                                               ______

            United  States,  37 F.3d  769,  774 (1st  Cir.  1994); United
            ______________                                         ______

            States v. Carter,  815 F.2d 827, 829 (1st  Cir. 1987); United
            ______    ______                                       ______

                                         -4-

            States v. Kobrosky, 711 F.2d 449, 457 (1st Cir. 1983).  Since
            ______    ________

            the district court has left the door open to Cumming to press

            his ineffectiveness claims, Cumming has the option to file  a

              2255 motion strictly limited  to those claims without being

            subjected to dismissal for abuse of the writ.  Cf. Rule 9(b),
                                                           ___

            Rules Governing   2255 Proceedings (successive motions may be

            dismissed).

                      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                                                            ________

                                         -5-