Mount v. United States

USCA1 Opinion

          November 12, 1993     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 93-1355

                                CHARLES MERRILL MOUNT,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                 Defendant, Appellee.
                                 ____________________

        No. 93-1411

                                CHARLES MERRILL MOUNT,
                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                     Respondent.
                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 93-1655 

                                    UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                CHARLES MERRILL MOUNT,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                 ____________________


                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                         Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
                                              ______________
                                 ____________________



















            Charles Merrill Mount on briefs pro se.
            _____________________
            A.  John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, and  Tobin N. Harvey,
            ___________________                               _______________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on briefs for appellee/respondent.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________

























































                 Per Curiam.  The judgments in these consolidated appeals
                 __________

            are each  affirmed.  The  contention that the  district judge

            lacked jurisdiction  to preside  over appellant's  collateral

            proceedings  because  she  presided  at  trial  is frivolous.

            Appellant's reliance on  Halliday v. United States,  380 F.2d
                                     ________    _____________

            270  (1st Cir.  1967), is  misplaced.   See,  e.g., Panzardi-
                                                    ___   ____  _________

            Alvarez v. United States, 879  F.2d 975, 985 (1st Cir. 1989),
            _______    _____________

            cert. denied,  493 U.S. 1082 (1990); Tracey v. United States,
            ____________                         ______    _____________

            739 F.2d  679, 681  (1st Cir. 1984),  cert. denied,  469 U.S.
                                                  ____________

            1109 (1985).  Nor is there  any reason to disturb the  denial

            of   appellant's  motion   to   "cancel"  the   $50   special

            assessments.  Contrary to his assertion, such assessments are

            to be imposed "per count  rather than per defendant."  United
                                                                   ______

            States v.  Smith, 857  F.2d 682, 686  (10th Cir.  1988); see,
            ______     _____                                         ___

            e.g., United States v. Rivera-Martinez, 931 F.2d 148, 152 n.5
            ____  _____________    _______________

            (1st  Cir.),  cert. denied,  112  S.  Ct.  184 (1991).    The
                          ____________

            statutory directive that the "obligation to pay an assessment

            ceases five  years after  the date of  the judgment,"  see 18
                                                                   ___

            U.S.C.   3013(c),  contemplates no judicial  intervention, at

            least in the absence of an ongoing attempt to secure payment.

            And cessation of the obligation  to pay is not the equivalent

            of nullification ab initio of the assessment.
                             _________

                 The  judgments  are affirmed.   Appellant's  petition is
                 ________________________________________________________

            denied.   Appellant's "cross-motion  for summary judgment" is
            _____________________________________________________________

            denied.
            _______



                                         -3-