Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Garcia Aromi v. United States, 95-1459 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 95-1459 Visitors: 2
Filed: Jan. 02, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Francisco Garcia Aromi on brief pro se.______________ ___________________, Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles Espinosa, Senior, _______________________, Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.briefs on appeal.district court is affirmed.
USCA1 Opinion




January 2, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



____________________


No. 95-1459

FRANCISCO GARCIA AROMI,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent, Appellee.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Francisco Garcia Aromi on brief pro se. ______________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Miguel A. Pereira, ______________ ___________________
Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles Espinosa, Senior _______________________
Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.


____________________


____________________





















Per Curiam. Pro se petitioner Francisco Garcia Aromi __________ ___ __

(Garcia) was convicted after pleading guilty to a two count

indictment that charged him with robbing the San Sebastian

branch of the Banco Popular de Puerto Rico and using and

carrying firearms in connection with said robbery, all in

violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 2113(a), (d), (e), and

924(c)(1). He now appeals a district court order that denied

his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255.

Garcia's motion and supplemental filings alleged four claims:

(1) that he is entitled to a downward adjustment for

acceptance of responsibility under a 1992 amendment to

U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(a), (2) that he is entitled to a downward

adjustment for being a minor participant under U.S.S.G.

3B1.2(b), (3) that his sentence violates the Fifth

Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and (4) that defense

counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to appeal

Garcia's sentence, failing to seek the minor participant

adjustment, and failing to explain various matters to

Garcia.1

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties'

briefs on appeal. We conclude that the district court

properly denied Garcia's 3E1.1(a) and Equal Protection


____________________

1. Garcia alleged that defense counsel failed to explain the
nature of the offense, the fact that Garcia could be held
responsible for his codefendants' conduct, the uses of the
presentence report, and the consequences of his guilty plea.

-2-













claims for the reasons stated in the district court's

opinion. And while we agree that Garcia's 3B1.2(b) claim

was meritless, we note that it also was not cognizable in

this 2255 proceeding. See Knight v. Miller, 37 F.3d 769, ___ ______ ______

771-74 (1st Cir. 1994). We also agree that Garcia's claims

that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by

failing to seek a 3B1.2(b) adjustment and by failing to

explain the matters noted in note 1, supra, also were _____

properly denied for the reasons stated in the district

court's opinion.2 Finally, Garcia has waived his claim that

counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a

notice of appeal because he has not addressed it in his

opening brief. Cf. Barrett v. United States 965 F.2d 1184, ___ _______ _____________

1187 n. 3 (1st Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is affirmed. ________










____________________

2. Moreover, as Garcia's claim that defense counsel rendered
ineffective assistance by failing to explain the various
matters identified above was based only on his unsworn
allegations, the claim was inadequate on its face. "A habeas
application must rest on a foundation of factual allegations
presented under oath, either in a verified petition or
supporting affidavits.....Facts alluded to in an unsworn
memorandum will not suffice." United States v. Labonte, No. _____________ _______
95-1226, slip op. at 36 (1st Cir. Dec. 6, 1995)(citation
omitted).

-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