United States v. Hammed ( 1994 )

USCA1 Opinion

          September 8, 1994
                              [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


                                 ____________________


        No. 93-1894

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                     ALLI HAMMED,

                                Defendant, Appellant.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND


                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Ali Hammed on brief pro se.
            __________
            Arthur R. Silen on brief for petitioner.
            _______________
            Edwin  J. Gale,  United States  Attorney, Margaret  E.  Curran and
            ______________                            ____________________
        Zechariah  Chafee, Assistant  United  States Attorneys,  on brief  for
        _________________
        appellee.


                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________



















                      Per Curiam.  We have fully  reviewed the record and
                      __________

            briefs, including defendant's pro  se briefs and motions, and

            conclude  the appeal  is meritless,  largely for  the reasons

            stated in  the government's briefs.  To  the extent defendant

            is contending that counsel was ineffective in failing to move

            to dismiss the indictment because of governmental perjury, we

            find  no  ineffective  assistance  of  counsel.    The  facts

            defendant describes do not  rise to the level of  perjury and

            do  not  warrant dismissal  of the  indictment.   As  for the

            remainder  of defendant's  ineffective assistance  of counsel

            claims,  we do not reach them because they are dependent upon

            factual  assertions outside  the  record.   United States  v.
                                                        _________________

            Mala,  7 F.3d 1058, 1063  (1st Cir. 1993),  cert. denied, 114
            ____                                        ____________

            S.Ct. 1839 (1994).  All of defendant's motions, including his

            request for transcripts,  to correct the presentence  report,

            and to hold the prosecutor and Agent Botelho in contempt, are

            denied.

                 Affirmed.
                 ________