Taylor v. United States ( 1995 )

USCA1 Opinion

          June 29, 1995

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT











                                 ____________________



        No. 94-2143



                                   KEVIN G. TAYLOR,



                                Petitioner, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                Respondent, Appellee.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                    [Hon. Walter Jay Skinner, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,

                                   Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Kevin G. Taylor on brief pro se.
_______________

            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and  Kimberly S.  Budd,
________________                                _________________

        Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                 ____________________









































                 Per Curiam.  This is an appeal of a district court order
__________



            denying the  motion of petitioner  Kevin Taylor to  set aside



            his conviction  and sentence.    See 28  U.S.C.    2255.   We
___



            affirm  the district  court's  order  substantially  for  the



            reasons given by Judge Skinner, adding a brief comment.  Like



            the district court, we  can find no indication that  the lack



            of  counsel at  arraignment affected  petitioner's subsequent



            trial.   No  presumption exists  that lack  of counsel  at an



            arraignment   prejudices   all  subsequent   stages   of  the



            proceeding where, as here,  the only significant happening at



            the arraignment  was the entry  of a not  guilty plea.   And,



            without some  infection of the subsequent  proceedings, there



            is no warrant for relief under   2255.



                 Affirmed.
________