Ventura-Ramos v. United States, 1st Cir. (1994)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsVentura-Ramos v. United States, 1st Cir. (1994)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUSCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1379
JOSE VENTURA-RAMOS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Jose Ventura Ramos on brief pro se.
__________________
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney,
__________________
and Lawrence D. Gaynor, Assistant United States
__________________
for appellee.
____________________
Margaret E. Cur
________________
Attorneys, on br
November 30, 1994
____________________
Per Curiam.
___________
Jose Ventura-Ramos
court's
judgment denying
U.S.C.
2255.
court
below.
claims.
have
In the
appeals the
his motion
filed
He presses none of the claims
At best,
he
has reconfigured
district court, he
received a four level
district
pursuant to
raised in the
one of
claimed that
1991), and he
trial counsel,
downward adjustment as a minimal
appeal,
he now
level downward
3B1.2(a)
received ineffective assistance
who failed
claims that
those
he should
participant in the offenses of conviction, U.S.S.G.
(Nov.
28
to ask for
he should
adjustment as a
by his
this adjustment.
have received
minor participant,
On
a two
U.S.S.G.
3B1.2(b) (Nov. 1991), and he received ineffective assistance
of counsel,
not only from
his trial counsel, who
failed to
ask for this adjustment, but also from his appellate counsel,
who
failed to
raise this
issue on his
direct appeal.
We
affirm.
We have repeatedly stated that we will not review claims
not raised below.
See, e.g., United States v. Lilly, 13 F.3d
_________ _____________
_____
15, 17-18 (1st Cir. 1994).
Even were we to construe Ventura-
Ramos' reconfigured claim as
having been encompassed
the claim
avails appellant
raised below,
alleges that
conviction
he was a
based
willingness
Those
concerning
recounted
minor participant in the
his
claims
to allow others to
the drug sale.
trial
on
it
in
of
mere
within
nothing.
offenses of
presence
and
use his apartment to conduct
claims are refuted by the evidence
Ventura-Ramos'
our opinion
He
disposing
role
of
in
the
at
offense,
appellant's direct
appeal, United States v. Ventura-Ramos, No. 92-1434, slip op.
_____________
_____________
at 2-3 (1st Cir. Nov.
13, 1992 (unpublished per curiam), and
by the statements of the
district court at sentencing and in
the course
of the instant
of disposing
Ventura-Ramos
2255
motion that
had a leadership role in the drug distribution
conspiracy.
No
defendant
adjustment
as a
is automatically
minor participant,
entitled to
a downward
even if the
________
defendant
happens to be less culpable than his or her co-defendants - a
claim
Ventura-Ramos urges
preceding paragraph,
here but, as
is refuted by
pointed out
the record.
in the
See United
___ ______
States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 460 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,
______
_______
____________
115 S. Ct.
of
80, 81 (1994).
a defendant's
clearly erroneous
here.
Further,
cannot
role
in
standard.
district court's determination
the offense
Id.
___
is
There
counsel's failure to raise
subject to
was no
such error
meritless issues
constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
United
______
States v. Victoria, 876 F.2d 1009, 1013 (1st Cir. 1989).
______
________
Affirmed.
_________
-3-
the
