Court Opinion

ID: 2964033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:19:20.958144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:18.109637
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          May 9, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1880

                                 CARLOS FERRER-CRUZ,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

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

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Cyr and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Carlos Ferrer-Cruz on brief pro se.
            __________________
            Guillermo Gil, United  States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega-Pacheco  and
            _____________                           _____________________
        Nelson  Perez-Sosa, Assistant  United States  Attorneys, on  brief for
        __________________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Following  his  conviction for  possession
                 __________

            with intent to  distribute cocaine, appellant Carlos  Ferrer-

            Cruz filed  a motion under 28  U.S.C.   2255  seeking to have

            his sentence vacated, set aside, or corrected.  The    motion

            was assigned  to the  district  judge who  presided over  the

            trial and sentencing  hearing.   See Rule 4(a)  of the  Rules
                                             ___

            Governing    2255 Proceedings.  Since  the sentencing hearing

            had  never been  transcribed and  the court  reporter's notes

            were  lost, appellant was  ordered to provide  a statement of

            his  recollection of  the proceedings.   The motion  was then

            referred to a magistrate,  who recommended that it  be denied

            and  dismissed.    Thereafter,  for  reasons  which  are  not

            entirely  clear based  on the  record, the  instant case  was

            administratively  transferred  to   another  district   judge

            (hereinafter:   motion judge).   Appellant did not  object to

            the  transfer.   After  a de  novo  review, the  motion judge
                                      __  ____

            adopted  the  magistrate's   recommendation.    This   appeal

            followed.

                 Appellant's  sole argument  is that  it was error  for a

            judge  other than the sentencing judge to  rule on his   2255

            motion.  This argument is waived since it was never presented

            to  the district court.  See, e.g., Carreiro v. Rhodes Gill &
                                     ___  ____  ________    _____________

            Co.,  68 F.3d 1443, 1449  (1st Cir. 1995);  Clauson v. Smith,
            ___                                         _______    _____

            823  F.2d 660, 666 (1st Cir. 1987).  Similarly, appellant has

            abandoned any arguments on the merits of the issues raised in

            his   2255 motion since he has failed to argue  the merits in

                                         -3-

            his appellate brief.   See,  e.g., Willhauck  v. Halpin,  953
                                   ___   ____  _________     ______

            F.2d 689, 700 (1st Cir. 1991).  

                 We  add simply  that we  are persuaded  that the  motion

            judge -- who  had the  benefit of the  trial transcript,  the

            PSR, and the  judgment -- was fully  in a position  to decide

            the issues  raised in the  motion.   Contrary to  appellant's

            suggestion, the motion judge  was in a position to  make, and

            did make, an  independent assessment  of whether  appellant's

            sentence would likely have  been different if defense counsel

            had  acted  differently.    Assuming  without  deciding  that

            appellant's  claims  premised  on  inadequate  opportunity to

            review  the PSR  and failure  of the  court to  make findings

            regarding his  financial condition  are cognizable in    2255

            proceedings,  they are  arguably  procedurally  barred.   See
                                                                      ___

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

            (explaining cause and prejudice  requirement).  In any event,

            appellant failed to show  that he was prejudiced by  the lack

            of  an adequate  opportunity  to personally  review the  PSR.

            Moreover,  the PSR  thoroughly details  appellant's financial

            condition, and the court's consideration of this condition is

            evinced by the fact  that it chose a fine  within appellant's

            then ability  to pay and at  the lower end of  the applicable

            range.  Cf.  United States  v. Wilfred Am.  Educ. Corp.,  953
                    ___  _____________     ________________________

            F.2d 717,  719-20 (1st Cir.  1992) (reviewing court  will not

            presume  that sentencing  court ignored relevant  evidence in

                                         -4-

            the  record).   Under the  circumstances, we  do not  think a

            sentencing  transcript was essential  to evaluate appellant's

            claims.  

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -2-