Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Georgacarakos v. J.D. Lamer, 95-1132 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 95-1132 Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 16, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: ___________, Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.________________ __________________, Assistant United States Attorney, on motion for summary dismissal for, appellee.district court judge on December 27, 1994).was on the merits).not present any defense at trial plainly is wrong;
USCA1 Opinion




[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



____________________


No. 95-1132

PETER N. GEORGACARAKOS,

Petitioner,

v.

J.D. LAMER,

Respondent.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Peter N. Georgacarakos on brief pro se. ______________________
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and Michael M. DuBose, ________________ __________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on motion for summary dismissal for
appellee.



____________________

August 16, 1995
____________________





















Per Curiam. Appellant Peter N. Georgacarakos ___________

appeals from the denial of a motion to vacate his sentence

filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255. After reviewing the record and

the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the district

court for the reasons set forth in the December 13, 1994

Recommended Decision of the magistrate judge (adopted by the

district court judge on December 27, 1994). We add the

following comments.

First, it is clear that appellant's claims in the

current 2255 motion are based on the same ground as the

claim he presented in the previous 2255 proceeding --

counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise

an entrapment defense. Thus, the district court did not err

in dismissing appellant's motion as successive. See Rule ___

9(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United

States District Courts ("[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").

Second, appellant's assertion that his attorney did

not present any defense at trial plainly is wrong; counsel ___

specifically argued that venue was not proper in the district

of Maine. That we rejected this argument on direct appeal

does not transform appellant's trial into one of which it

could be said that no defense was mounted. As a result, even

















if we were to consider appellant's 2255 motion on the

merits, it would fail.

Affirmed. ________















































-3-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer