Court Opinion

ID: 2964263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:22:57.969253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:50.344507
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          September 3, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1237

                               DANIEL JOSEPH MARAVILLA,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Daniel Joseph Maravilla on brief pro se.
            _______________________
            Deval  L. Patrick,  Assistant Attorney  General, David  K.  Flynn,
            _________________                                ________________
        Attorney,  Department of  Justice, and  Marie K.  McElderry, Attorney,
                                                ___________________
        Department of Justice, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Daniel  Joseph Maravilla appeals the denial
                 __________

            of  his motion filed pursuant to  28 U.S.C.   2255.  Although

            he raised numerous issues in that motion, he has confined his

            appeal to his claim that the government's failure to disclose

            two FBI-302  reports violated  its obligation under  Brady v.
                                                                 _____

            Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and  its progeny.  We deem  the
            ________

            remaining issues raised in the   2255 motion waived.

                 We have  carefully reviewed the parties'  briefs and the

            record   on  appeal  as  to  the  Brady  issue.    We  affirm
                                              _____

            essentially for  the reasons  stated in the  district court's

            opinion.   Maravilla v. United States, 901 F. Supp. 62, 64-66
                       _________    _____________

            (D.P.R. 1995).  We add only the following.

                 Contrary to  Maravilla's contention, the  district court

            neither  applied  the wrong  legal  standard  nor abused  its

            discretion in its ruling.  And, insofar as Maravilla suggests

            that  an erroneous application of law  or abuse of discretion

            is  grounds   for  sua  sponte  recusal,   he  is  incorrect.

            Contentions  that  the district  court  erred  or abused  its

            discretion in  its ruling are routine grounds for appeal, not

            recusal.  See Liteky  v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157
                      ___ ______     _____________

            (1994).

                 Affirmed.
                 _________

                                         -3-