Graciani-Gonzalez v. Acosta-Grubb ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1311



                               EDGAR GRACIANI-GONZALES,



                                Petitioner, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                MARIANO ACOSTA-GRUBB,



                                Respondent, Appellee.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Edgar Graciani Gonzales on brief pro se.
_______________________

            Guillermo  Gil, United  States Attorney,  Jose A.  Quiles,  Senior
______________                            _______________

        Litigation  Counsel, and  Edwin  O. Vazquez,  Assistant United  States
_________________

        Attorney, Deputy Chief, Criminal Division, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                   February 3, 1997

                                 ____________________

































                 Per Curiam.    Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and
__________



            record,  we  conclude that  petitioner's     2255 motion  was



            properly  dismissed without  a  hearing, essentially  for the



            reasons  stated by  the district  court.   We add  only these



            comments.



                 1.   We will not consider petitioner's claim, raised for



            the first time on appeal, that his attorney had a conflict of



            interest.  See United States v. Jackson, 3 F.3d 506, 511 (1st
___ _____________    _______



            Cir. 1993).



                 2.   The district court was not required to give further



            consideration   to  the   affidavit  purporting   to  absolve



            petitioner of  all involvement  in the  crime.   The district



            court correctly  followed this  court's prior ruling  on that



            point.  See United  States v. Graciani Gonzales, 61  F.3d 70,
___ ______________    _________________



            78 (1st Cir. 1995).



                 3.   Petitioner's  motion to correct  the PSR is denied.
______



            See  Fed.  R.  App. P.  10(e)  (record  may  be corrected  to
___



            accurately reflect the proceedings below).



                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
________   ___































                                         -2-