Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 95-2269
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
GEORGE MORAN,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
____________________
Before
____________________
United
States
United States
Attorney,
and
Dina
Mich
___________
Attorney, on Motion
for Summ
____________________
February 5, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam.
__________
We have carefully
on
George
Assuming, in appellant
The
district
court
neither
erred
nor
abused
its
an
amended judgment in a
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
his
sentence.
its
discretion
criminal case" as
Neither did
in
Moran's contention
a motion, filed
denying
that the
Moran's
motion
err or abuse
for
default.
government's response to
his
event,
contrary
tardy,
Moran
ruling on his
to Moran's
is not
thereby
supposition,
even
automatically
if it
were
entitled to
As
court correctly
Moran may
in
concluded that, in
this collateral
raise
attack,
new issues, they could have been, but were not, raised
the conspiracy, to
the extent
it is not
foreclosed by
of
our
F.2d
1299 (1st
Cir. 1993),
is simply
-2-
factually erroneous.
Contrary to Moran's
not
charged
jailed
in
conspiring
apparent present
with conspiring
October
1988;
with Hobart
understanding, he
with
Paul
rather,
he
Callahan, who
was
charged
was
was
with
ringleader) and
only
by circuit precedent,
v. Lindia, 82
______
F.3d 1154,
the
holding
of which
(1997) (per
F.2d 13,
was recently
United States
_____________
curiam), citing
______
16-17 (1st
correctly points
Cir.
out that
favorably cited
v. Watts, 117
_____
United States v.
_____________
1989).
S. Ct.
633
Mocciola, 891
________
Finally, the
the amount of
by the
government
cocaine underlying
role in the
and
His offense
by his status
level,
as a career
offender.
denied.
_______
-3-