Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 95-1668
VICTOR ALVAREZ,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
____________________
Before
____________________
____________________
August 2, 1996
____________________
Per Curiam.
___________
This is
an
appeal from
a district
court order
denying a
motion by
petitioner Alvarez
See 28 U.S.C.
___
to set
2255.
We
(1)
the
scope
arguments
petitioner's
of
raised,
direct appeal.
equal
co-defendant Flores's
were
testimony.
considered,
and
The same
rejected
United States v.
_____________
on
Alvarez, 987
_______
F.2d 77, 81-83 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 849 (1993).
____________
v. United States,
_____________
See Murchu
___ ______
(2)
counsel
under
Petitioner alleges
at trial,
the
and related
Fourteenth
erroneous
admission
pre-trial
statement.
petitioner
must show
ineffective assistance
deprivations
Amendment,
into evidence
However, to
in
connection
of
have been
different.
sustain
F.3d 14,
15 (1st Cir.
made the
same argument as
result of the
See Argencourt
___ __________
1996).
rights
with
the
co-defendant Matos's
prejudice, meaning
counsel's
of his
of
such a
that
claim a
but for
his
proceeding would
v. United States, 78
______________
On direct
appeal, petitioner
to prejudice that he
makes here,
-2-
panel of
entitled to
there
this
court concluded
a reversal
that
due to the
although Matos
error, as
was
to petitioner
Alvarez,
_______
987
F.2d at
83-84.
Thus
this claim,
too,
is
reach
petitioner's
allegation
that
trial
counsel's
at sentencing in
cocaine found
alleged
in all
three codefendants'
first
suitcases.
nonconstitutional, nonjurisdictional
time under
circumstances"
justice.
Knight
______
Cir. 1994).
It may not
2255 absent
amounting
to
weight of the
This
error was
not
be considered for
the
a showing
complete
of "exceptional
miscarriage
of
failure
to call
probably
petitioner as
a deliberate
a witness
at the
strategic decision.
trial was
Petitioner
now
____________________
1
1
the President
decide in this
amendments
-3-
contends that
this
he needs
new question.
As
the assistance of
the
issue itself
counsel to
is not
brief
properly
and
in
any event
we
see
no
reason to
appoint
counsel,
-4-