Court Opinion

ID: 2964570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:35.774572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:32.169036
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1311

                               EDGAR GRACIANI-GONZALES,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                MARIANO ACOSTA-GRUBB,

                                Respondent, 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.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Edgar Graciani Gonzales on brief pro se.
            _______________________
            Guillermo  Gil, United  States Attorney,  Jose A.  Quiles,  Senior
            ______________                            _______________
        Litigation  Counsel, and  Edwin  O. Vazquez,  Assistant United  States
                                  _________________
        Attorney, Deputy Chief, Criminal Division, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   February 3, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.    Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and
                 __________

            record,  we  conclude that  petitioner's     2255 motion  was

            properly  dismissed without  a  hearing, essentially  for the

            reasons  stated by  the district  court.   We add  only these

            comments.

                 1.   We will not consider petitioner's claim, raised for

            the first time on appeal, that his attorney had a conflict of

            interest.  See United States v. Jackson, 3 F.3d 506, 511 (1st
                       ___ _____________    _______

            Cir. 1993).

                 2.   The district court was not required to give further

            consideration   to  the   affidavit  purporting   to  absolve

            petitioner of  all involvement  in the  crime.   The district

            court correctly  followed this  court's prior ruling  on that

            point.  See United  States v. Graciani Gonzales, 61  F.3d 70,
                    ___ ______________    _________________

            78 (1st Cir. 1995).

                 3.   Petitioner's  motion to correct  the PSR is denied.
                                                                  ______

            See  Fed.  R.  App. P.  10(e)  (record  may  be corrected  to
            ___

            accurately reflect the proceedings below).  

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -2-