Court Opinion

ID: 2965025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:19.898051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:04.739047
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2322

                                   ANGEL RODRIGUEZ,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Angel Rodriguez on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Donald K. Stern, United  States Attorney, and  Richard L. Hoffman,
            _______________                                __________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  December 12, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Appellant Angel Rodriguez appeals from
                      __________

            the denial of his motion filed  under 28 U.S.C.   2255.   For

            the following reasons, we agree with the district court  that

            the motion was meritless.

                      1.   Appellant's claim  that the forfeiture  of his

            property  was excessive  under the  Eighth  Amendment is  not

            cognizable in a   2255 proceeding since  appellant seeks only

            relief  from a  monetary-type penalty  and  not release  from

            confinement.   See Smullen v.  United States, 94 F.3d  20, 25
                           ___ _______     _____________

            (1st Cir.  1996)  (holding that  a  claim that  defendant  is

            entitled to  a reduced  restitution order  falls outside  the

            scope of   2255).

                      2.    Appellant's   argument  that  the  forfeiture

            violates the  prohibition against  double jeopardy  fails for

            the simple reason that the forfeiture was imposed in the same
                                                                     ____

            proceeding that resulted in appellant's  conviction.  Compare
            __________                                            _______

            Department  of Revenue  v.  Kurth Ranch,  511  U.S. 767,  784
            ______________________      ___________

            (1994) (the collection of a  tax on dangerous drugs sought in

            a   separate  proceeding   initiated   subsequently  to   the
                ________                           ____________

            termination  of  the  proceeding  in  which  defendants  were

            convicted violates the prohibition against double jeopardy; a

            second  punishment   "must  be   imposed  during   the  first

            prosecution or not at all").

                      3.    Appellant's  claims   regarding  the  alleged

            ineffective assistance rendered by his trial counsel were not

                                         -2-

            presented  to the district  court in the    2255 motion.   We

            therefore  will  not consider  them  for  the first  time  on

            appeal.   See Dziurgot  v. Luther, 897  F.2d 1222,  1224 (1st
                      ___ ________     ______

            Cir. 1990)  (per curiam).   Appellant's ignorance of  the law

            does not provide  an excuse for this default.   See Eagle Eye
                                                            ___ _________

            Fishing Corp.  v. United  States Dep't  of Commerce, 20  F.3d
            _____________     _________________________________

            503, 506 (1st  Cir. 1994) ("the right  of self-representation

            is  not  a license  not  to  comply  with relevant  rules  of

            procedural and  substantive law")  (internal quotation  marks

            and citations omitted).

                      4.  In any event, appellant's failure to assert all

            but one of  his claims in his first   2255 motion is an abuse

            of the  writ under  McCleskey v. Zant,  499 U.S.  467 (1991).
                                _________    ____

            Again, appellant's  pro se status  and ignorance  of the  law

            does  not  constitute  "cause"   sufficient  to  excuse  this

            omission.   See, e.g., Saahir  v. Collins, 956 F.2d  115, 118
                        ___  ____  ______     _______

            (5th Cir.  1992) (ignorance  of the law  is not  an objective

            external  impediment); Rodriguez  v.  Maynard, 948  F.2d 684,
                                   _________      _______

            687-88  (10th Cir. 1991)  (where the factual  and legal bases

            for the new claims existed when the first habeas petition was

            filed, petitioner's  ignorance of  the legal  significance of

            those  claims does  not amount  to cause).   Nor,  obviously,

            would failure to consider these  claims on appeal amount to a

            fundamental  miscarriage of justice.  See Andiarena v. United
                                                  ___ _________    ______

            States, 967 F.2d 715, 719  (1st Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (this
            ______

                                         -3-

            narrow   exception  applies   only  where   a  constitutional

            violationlikely caused the conviction of an innocent person).

                      The one  claim that  appellant did  present in  the

            first    2255 motion  -- the government's  alleged sentencing

            entrapment and  counsel's alleged  ineffective assistance  in

            connection  therewith -- cannot  be raised again  because the

            district court disposed of it  on the merits in that  first  

            2255  proceeding.    See Rule  9(b)  of  the  Rules Governing
                                 ___

            Section 2255 Cases ("[a]  second or successive motion  may be

            dismissed if the judge finds that  it fails to allege new  or

            different  grounds for relief and the prior determination was

            on the merits").

                      5.   It  follows that  the district  court did  not

            abuse its discretion in not holding a hearing  on appellant's

            forfeiture claims.  See United States v. McGill, 11 F.3d 223,
                                ___ _____________    ______

            225-26 (1st Cir. 1993).  

                      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                                                            ________

                                         -4-