United States v. Romero Lewis ( 1995 )

USCA1 Opinion

                           UNITED STATES COURT  OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT





          No. 93-1679



                                     UNITED STATES,

                                       Appellee,



                                          v.



                                  VICTOR LEVY-CORDERO,

                                 Defendant - Appellant.





          No. 93-2015



                                     UNITED STATES,

                                       Appellee,



                                          v.



                               WILLIAM ROMERO-LEWIS,

                              A/K/A CACO, EL TENIENTE,

                               Defendant - Appellant.





          No. 93-2087



                                     UNITED STATES,

                                       Appellee,



                                          v.



                              JOSE SAMUEL FORTY-ESTREMERA,

                                      A/K/A SAMMY,

                                 Defendant - Appellant.





                                         Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judqe,
_____ _____

                             Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
______ _______ _____

                                and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
_______ _____





                                     ORDER OF COURT



                               Entered   November 7, 1995



               The United States of America has filed a "Motion for

          Modification and Correction of Opinion" seeking two changes in the

          Court's opinion. The following is the disposition of said





























          requests:



               1. Footnote 1 is amended to read "twelve years" in

          substitution of "twelve months."



          2. The last full paragraph of page 13 of the opinion of the

          Court is amended to read:



                    For the  foregoing reasons,  we conclude  that the

                    improper remarks  were not  so  prejudicial as  to

                    require reversal. Notwithstanding our  decision in

                    this regard,  we repeat  our concern that,  "after

                    numerous warnings from this court, the prosecuting

                    attorneys in  the District of Puerto  Rico persist

                    in spiking their arguments with comments that  put

                    their  cases at  risk."  United  States v.  Ortiz-
______  ______     ______

                    Arrigoitia,  996  F.2d 436,  441  (lst Cir.  1993)
__________

                    (collecting  cases). See, e.g., Udechukwu, 11 F.3d
___  ____  _________

                    1101; Arrieta-Aqressot,  3 F.3d  525. When, as  in
________________

                    this   case,   a   visiting   Justice   Department

                    prosecutor  conducts  the  trial, we  nevertheless

                    expect  the  resident  United States  Attorney  to

                    insure   that  the   expectations  of   the  court

                    concerning   closing   argument  be   made  known.



               It is so Ordered.



                                                 By the Court:



                                                 FRANCIS P. SCIGLIANO,



                                                       Clerk.



                                                 By Janice M. O'Neil

                                                 Chief Deputy Clerk.

































































                    [cc: Messrs: Weiner, Geigel, Inserni and Ms.

          Mitchelll