Court Opinion

ID: 2964176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:44.092783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:14.495957
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 24, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2136

                                    DAVID MALGERI,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                [Hon. Walter Jay Skinner, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr, and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            David Malgeri on brief pro se.
            _____________
            Donald  K.  Stern,  United  States  Attorney,  Donald  L.  Cabell,
            _________________                              __________________
        Assistant U.S. Attorney.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Pro se  petitioner David Malgeri  appeals a
                 __________   ___ __

            district  court order that summarily denied his motion to set

            aside his  conviction and withdraw  his guilty plea  under 28

            U.S.C.   2255.   Malgeri pled  guilty to attempting to  rob a

            federally  insured  bank in  violation  of  18 U.S.C.      2,

            2113(a),  and to  using  and carrying  a firearm  during that

            attempt in violation of 18 U.S.C.   924(c).  He contends that

            his plea was not knowing  and voluntary because the  district

            court  failed to  warn him  about supervised release  and its

            effect  during his Rule 11 hearing.  In an apparent effort to

            distinguish  this case  from United  States v.  Timmreck, 441
                                         ______________     ________

            U.S. 780 (1979)(holding that    2255 relief was not available

            to a prisoner who  alleged that the district court  failed to

            advise him of a mandatory special parole term in violation of

            Rule  11),  Malgeri  avers  that  he  was  wholly unaware  of

            supervised  release  and  its  effect  throughout the  entire

            district  court proceedings and  that he would  not have pled

            guilty had he been advised of supervised release.

                 Relying on Timmreck, the  district court concluded  that
                            ________

            Malgeri failed to state a cognizable habeas claim.  We agree.

            We reject Malgeri's contention  that the district court erred

            in holding  that he  had  failed to  allege a  constitutional

            error.  Malgeri cannot convert  a technical Rule 11 violation

            into a  constitutional error simply  by averring that  he was

            otherwise unaware  of supervised  release and would  not have

                                         -2-

            pled guilty had he been so aware.  See, e.g., Lucas v. United
                                               ___  ____  _____    ______

            States,  963 F.2d 8, 12-15  (2d Cir. 1992);  United States v.
            ______                                       _____________

            Holloway,  960 F.2d  1348,  1352-54 (8th  Cir. 1992);  United
            ________                                               ______

            States v. DeLuca, 889 F.2d 503, 507-08 (3d Cir. 1989).1
                                                                  1
            ______    ______

                 Malgeri also argues  that he is entitled  to relief from

            his firearm  conviction   because he did not "use"  a firearm

            as that term is construed in Bailey v. United States, 116  S.
                                         ______    _____________

            Ct.  501  (1995).     The  record  discloses  that  Malgeri's

            conviction is fully supportable on the ground that he carried

            the firearm.   See United States  v. Ramirez-Ferrer, 82  F.3d
                         _____ _____________     ______________

            1149,  1152 (1st Cir.  1996). Thus, Bailey  provides no basis
                                                ______

            for relief.

                 In view  of the foregoing, the judgment  of the district

            court is summarily affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.
                               ________   ___

                                
            ____________________

               1Malgeri also  claims that  he was prejudiced  because the
               1
            plea  colloquy misled him to believe  that his sentence would
            not exceed the 93-101  month guideline sentencing range (GSR)
            that  the prosecutor  identified in  response to  the court's
            questioning.  The record  refutes this  claim.   Malgeri pled
            guilty pursuant  to  an open  plea  agreement that  left  his
            sentence  entirely within  the court's discretion  within the
            statutory maximum available under  the law.  Malgeri affirmed
            that  he had not been  promised a particular  sentence at the
            Rule  11  hearing.  The  court's  questions   concerning  the
            applicable GSR  in no way  imported a promise  that Malgeri's
            sentence  would not exceed that range.  Thus, Malgeri was not
            prejudiced by the plea colloquy. 

                                         -3-