Court Opinion

ID: 2963849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:16:10.070973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:08.708708
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        December 12, 1995       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1256 

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                               JOHN J. ZULETA-ALVAREZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            John J. Zuleta-Alvarez on brief pro se.
            ______________________
            Jay P. McCloskey,  United States  Attorney, and  F. Mark  Terison,
            ________________                                 ________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Petitioner-appellant John J.  Zuleta-
                      __________

            Alvarez appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal of
                            ___ __

            his second petition pursuant to 28  U.S.C.   2255 as an abuse

            of  the  writ.   Nothing  in  our  November  3, 1992  opinion

            affirming the  denial of  petitioner's first    2255 petition

            was  intended to indicate that an "abuse of the writ" defense

            would be  unavailable if petitioner filed  a second petition.

            We  merely  intended  to  alert the  pro  se  petitioner that
                                                 ___  __

            although the issue he raised for the first time on appeal did

            not merit  relief under  our narrowly circumscribed  scope of

            review, it could be raised in  a new   2255 petition, subject

            to any available defenses (including abuse of the writ).

                      Petitioner's  reliance  upon   Sanders  v.   United
                                                     _______       ______

            States,  373 U.S. 1 (1963), is misplaced.  McCleskey v. Zant,
            ______                                     _________    ____

            499  U.S. 467  (1991),  established the  cause and  prejudice

            standard  that  now governs  in  abuse  of  the  writ  cases.

            Petitioner has failed to  demonstrate "cause" for his failure

            to raise the two  issues presently before  us in his first   

            2255 petition.   We disagree  that this  court's decision  in

            United  States v.  O'Campo, 973  F.2d  1015 (1st  Cir. 1992),
            ______________     _______

            constituted   new  law   such  that   the  legal   basis  for

            petitioner's present claims  was not reasonably available  at

            the  time that  his first  petition was  filed.   The O'Campo
                                                                 ________

            holding relied  upon a straightforward  interpretation of the

            language  of  the   then-current  United  States   Sentencing

                                         -2-

            Guidelines  and  the commentary  thereto.  The  same relevant

            language  was  contained  in  the  Guidelines  in  effect  in

            December  1991, when  petitioner  filed his  first  petition.

            Therefore, the language of the Guidelines themselves provided

            a legal basis for petitioner's present claims.

                      Petitioner  has failed  to  satisfy  his burden  of

            showing  cause  for  failing  to  raise  earlier  the  claims

            contained in his second    2255 petition.   Nor has he  shown

            that a "fundamental miscarriage  of justice would result from

            a failure to entertain the claim[s]."  McCleskey v. Zant, 499
                                                   _________    ____

            U.S. at 495.  Therefore, we affirm the district court's order
                                        ______

            dismissing  petitioner's second  petition under  28  U.S.C.  

            2255 as an abuse of the writ.

                                         -3-