Court Opinion

ID: 2963913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:21.140543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:48.099813
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          March 6, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2008

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                              SANTIAGO PANZARDI LESPIER,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                 [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________
            Elfrick Mendez Morales on brief for appellant.
            ______________________
            John C. Keeney, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Theresa M.B.
            ______________                                     ____________
        Van Vliet, Chief, Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice, Philip
        _________                                                       ______
        Urofsky, Trial Attorney, Criminal Division Department of Justice, on
        _______
        brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________
              

                      Per  Curiam.   Defendant  Santiago Panzardi-Lespier
                      ___________

            appeals from the district court judgment and sentence entered

            on  a  jury  verdict  finding him  guilty  of  conspiring  to

            distribute more than 1000 pounds of marijuana in violation of

            21  U.S.C.    841(a)(1) and 846 and possessing less than 1000

            pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of

            21 U.S.C.   841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C.   2.   We briefly address

            the two major points defendant raises on appeal.

                 1.   We need not  resolve defendant's argument  that the

            district court erred in not dismissing the indictment because

            no  evidence linking  defendant  to the  alleged offense  was

            presented to the grand jury.  Defendant waived that objection

            to the indictment by not raising it before the trial.  United
                                                                   ______

            States  v. Mack, 892 F.2d 134, 135-136 (1st Cir. 1989), cert.
            ______     ____                                         _____

            denied, 498 U.S. 859 (1990); Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b). 
            ______

                 Defendant has offered no  explanation for his failure to

            comply with  Rule 12, and he has made no showing of cause for

            relief  from the waiver.  Further, in ruling on defendant's  

            2255 petition, the district  court specifically rejected  his

            claim  of ineffective  assistance of  counsel for  failure to

            object to the indictment, and defendant has not appealed from

            that  ruling.   Accordingly  we  will not  consider  his late

            challenge to the indictment.

                 2.   Defendant  also  argues that  he was  substantially

            prejudiced by  spillover evidence  from the other  counts and

                                         -2-
                                          2

            defendants  and  that the  district  court  erred in  denying

            severance of counts and defendants.  We also need not resolve

            that  argument because  defendant  waived this  objection  by

            failing to raise it before trial.

                 Requests  for severance  of counts  or  defendants under

            Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 must be raised prior to

            trial.  Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(5);  United States v. McLaughlin,
                                             _____________    __________

            957 F.2d 12, 18 (1st Cir. 1992).

                 Defendant first  raised his claim for severance in the  

            2255 petition filed five years after  trial.  Accordingly, we

            will not consider it now.

                 Affirmed.  Loc.R. 27.1.
                 ________

                                         -3-
                                          3