Court Opinion

ID: 2962593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:59:37.827404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:39.911966
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 10, 1994         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 93-2301                                             LUCAS REYES-RIVERA,                                     Petitioner,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                     Respondent.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                              Torruella, Selya and Cyr,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ___________________               Lucas Reyes-Rivera on brief pro se.               __________________               Edwin  J.  Gale, United  States  Attorney,  and Margaret  E.               _______________                                 ____________          Curran, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.          ______                                  __________________                                  __________________                      Per  Curiam.        We  affirm  the   dismissal  of                      ___________            appellant's    2255 petition  for the reasons  stated in  the            government's brief and in our December 3, 1991 opinion.  That            opinion rejected appellant's   challenge to  (1) a two  level            upward adjustment for managerial role and (2) denial of a two            level reduction for acceptance  of responsibility.  Appellant            may not  relitigate in  a    2255 petition arguments  already            rejected  on direct appeal.   United  States v.  Michaud, 901                                          ______________     _______            F.2d  5,6 (1st Cir. 1990); Tracey v. United States, 739 F.2d,                                       ______    _____________            679, 682 (1st Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 (1985).                                      ____  ______            Appellant's contention  that he was improperly  denied a four            level reduction for minimal  participant status fails for the            very reasons we upheld the two level increase for  managerial            role.                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -2-