Court Opinion

ID: 2963429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:09:37.436091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:01.919469
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 13, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                      
                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2011

                                  RANDY S. LAPLANTE,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. A. David Mazzone, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Randy S. Laplante on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Donald K. Stern,  United States Attorney, and Mark W.  Pearlstein,
            _______________                               ___________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   Randy LaPlante  appeals a  district court
                 ___________

            order  that denied  his 28  U.S.C.  2255  motion to  vacate a

            sentence  that   was  imposed  as  a   result  of  LaPlante's

            violations  of the  terms  of  his  supervised release.    We

            affirm.

                 As  the  district  court's order  summarizes  LaPlante's

            history  and claims,  we will  not repeat  them here.   After

            thoroughly  reviewing the  record and  the parties  briefs on

            appeal, we  are persuaded  that the district  court correctly

            denied relief on  LaPlante's claim  that he  did not  receive

            adequate notice  of the conditions of  his supervised release

            and his claim that his reentry into the United States did not

            violate one of those conditions.  LaPlante has failed to show

            cause for  failing to  raise these  claims at  his supervised

            release  revocation (SRR)  hearing or  on direct  appeal, and

            absent such a showing,  review on the merits under  28 U.S.C.

             2255 is barred.  See Knight v. Miller, 37 F.2d 769, 774 (1st
                              ___ ______    ______

            Cir. 1994); Campino v.  United States, 968 F.2d 187,  190 (2d
                        _______     _____________

            Cir. 1990).   While LaPlante  argues that he  could not  have

            raised  these   claims  sooner   because,  inter   alia,  the
                                                       _____   ____

            prosecutor  erroneously stated  that the  district judge  had

            announced  the  conditions of  LaPlante's  supervised release

            when,  in fact, the clerk had made this announcement, none of

            LaPlante's reasons constitute the "cause" required to  obtain

            relief on these claims under 28  U.S.C.  2255.  See Murray v.
                                                            ___ ______

            Carrier, 477 U.S. 478,  488 (1986); Magee v.  Harshbarger, 16
            _______                             _____     ___________

            F.3d 469, 472 (1st Cir. 1994).1

                 However,  we note  that LaPlante  at least  arguably had

            cause for not previously raising his claim that his  sentence

            is   unlawfully  based   on  certain   invalid  Massachusetts

            convictions.    It  appears that,  at  the  time  of the  SRR

            hearing, LaPlante was not aware that one of those convictions

            (i.e.,  the  Brookline district  court  conviction)  had been

            vacated one week  earlier.   Thus, LaPlante was  not able  to

            bring  this  to the  district  court's attention  at  the SRR

            hearing.   Nevertheless, this claim fails on its merits. Even

                                
            ____________________

            1.  Moreover,  while we need  not decide the  merits of these
            claims,  we note  that  both  have  serious  flaws.    It  is
            undisputed  that   LaPlante  received  oral  notice   of  the
            conditions  of   his  supervised  release   at  his   initial
            sentencing hearing.   Those conditions were  not complicated.
            LaPlante later  received written notice that  his reentry was
            prohibited absent the  Attorney General's permission when  he
            signed a  "Notice of  Country to  which Deportation has  been
            Directed and Penalty for  Reentry" (hereafter "Notice").  Yet
            at  the SRR hearing,  LaPlante conceded that  he violated the
            special  conditions that  prohibited  his reentry  absent the
            Attorney General's  permission and his use of a false drivers
            license.  These circumstances indicate that LaPlante received
            adequate notice  of the special conditions  that governed his
            supervised release. See United States v. Felix, 994 F.2d 550,
                                ___ _____________    _____
            552 (8th Cir. 1993);  United States v. Johnson, 763  F. Supp.
                                  _____________    _______
            900, 903 (W.D. Texas 1991). We also  note that in signing the
            foregoing "Notice,"  LaPlante expressly waived  his right not
            to be deported until 72 hours after the service of the  final
            order  of deportation  and requested  deportation as  soon as
            possible.   But  8  C.F.R.   3.4  provides  that  an  alien's
            departure from the United States  subsequent to the taking of
            an appeal but before  a decision thereon "shall  constitute a
            withdrawal of the appeal...."  It thus appears  that LaPlante
            withdrew his appeal  of the deportation order when  he signed
            the "Notice" requesting immediate deportation.     

                                         -3-

            if the district court had ignored this conviction, this would

            only have resulted  in a one point deduction  from LaPlante's

            criminal history score.   His criminal history category would

            not have changed. It is undisputed that the second conviction

            that LaPlante says is invalid is  the subject of a motion  to

            vacate that  is pending in  the West Roxbury  district court.

            While  LaPlante  contends  that  we  should  hold  that  this

            conviction is "presumptively  void" and deduct an  additional

            two  points from his criminal history score, we have no basis

            for so holding.2   Accordingly, the judgment of  the district

            court is affirmed.
                     ________

                                
            ____________________

            2.  Contrary to LaPlante's argument on appeal, neither United
                                                                   ______
            States v. Isaacs,  14 F.3d 106 (1st Cir. 1994), nor Custis v.
            ______    ______                                    ______
            United  States, 114 S. Ct. 1732, 1734 (1994), authorizes this
            ______________
            court to hold that the West Roxbury district court conviction
            is "presumptively void" simply  because LaPlante may not have
            been warned  that he  could be deported  as a  result of  his
            guilty plea.   Rather, Custis "significantly  restricted" the
                                   ______
            circumstances under which a  prior conviction may be held  to
            be void. See United States v.  Cordero, 42 F.3d 697, 701 (1st
                     ___ _____________     _______
            Cir. 1994)(noting that Custis prohibits collateral attacks on
                                   ______
            prior state-court convictions  unless conviction was obtained
            in violation  of the  right to counsel).  Those circumstances
            are not present here.

                                         -4-