Court Opinion

ID: 2964566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:31.854384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:22.143456
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2269

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    GEORGE MORAN,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            George Moran on brief pro se.
            ____________
            Donald  K.  Stern,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Dina   Michael
            _________________                                   ______________
        Chaitowitz, Assistant  United States  Attorney, on Motion  for Summary
        __________
        Disposition, for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   February 5, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   We have carefully  reviewed the record  on
                 __________

            appeal and the briefs of the parties.  Assuming, in appellant

            George  Moran's favor, that he has filed a timely appeal, we,

            nonetheless, conclude that the appeal has no merit.

                 The  district  court  neither   erred  nor  abused   its

            discretion in construing Moran's self-styled "motion to amend

            an  amended judgment in a  criminal case" as  a motion, filed

            pursuant to 28 U.S.C.   2255, to vacate, set aside or correct

            his  sentence.  Neither did  the district court  err or abuse

            its  discretion  in  denying  Moran's  motion  for   default.

            Moran's contention  that the  government's response to  his  

            2255 motion was late is unsupported in the record and, in any

            event,  contrary  to Moran's  supposition,  even  if it  were

            tardy,  Moran  is not  thereby  automatically  entitled to  a

            ruling on his   2255 motion in his favor.

                 As  for the substance of the   2255 motion, the district

            court correctly  concluded that, in  this collateral  attack,

            Moran may  not relitigate issues already  raised and rejected

            in  his direct appeal and, to the  extent that Moran seeks to

            raise  new issues, they could have been, but were not, raised

            in that direct appeal.

                 In any event, Moran's complaint about the time frame  of

            the conspiracy, to  the extent  it is not  foreclosed by  our

            opinion in his direct appeal, see United States v. Moran, 984
                                          ___ _____________    _____

            F.2d  1299 (1st  Cir. 1993),  is simply  factually erroneous.

                                         -2-

            Contrary to Moran's  apparent present  understanding, he  was

            not  charged  with conspiring  with  Paul  Callahan, who  was

            jailed  in   October  1988;  rather,  he   was  charged  with

            conspiring  with Hobart  Willis (the alleged  ringleader) and

            others and that  conspiracy was alleged to  have lasted until

            June 12, 1990.

                 Moran's remaining appellate arguments are foreclosed not

            only  by circuit precedent,  see United States  v. Lindia, 82
                                         ___ _____________     ______

            F.3d 1154,  1161 (1st Cir. 1996), but also circuit precedent,

            the  holding  of which  was recently  favorably cited  by the

            Supreme Court, see  United States  v. Watts, 117  S. Ct.  633
                           ___  _____________     _____

            (1997) (per  curiam), citing  United States v.  Mocciola, 891
                                  ______  _____________     ________

            F.2d 13,  16-17 (1st  Cir.  1989).   Finally, the  government

            correctly points  out that  the amount of  cocaine underlying

            the counts on which Moran was acquitted played no dispositive

            role in the  ultimate sentence imposed.   His offense  level,

            and  his sentence, was determined  by his status  as a career

            offender.

                 The  "motion  for  reassignment of  appellate  panel" is
                 ________________________________________________________

            denied.
            _______

                 The orders of the district  court denying the motion for
                 ________________________________________________________

            default and the   2255 motion are Affirmed.
            ___________________________________________

                                         -3-