United States v. Lombardi

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-2033
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
VINCENT LOMBARDI,
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
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Vince Lombardi on brief pro se.
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Andrew J. Reich,
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
October 17, 1997
Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and
record, we perceive no reason to set aside appellant's plea
or sentence.
The plea proceedings reveal no fundamental defect or
miscarriage of justice. Appellant's argument regarding the
scope of 18 U.S.C. 371 is meritless. See United States v.
Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 422 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S.
820 (1994). The record does not support appellant's claims
that his plea was coerced and that the plea colloquy was
confusing or inadequate. Further, as the district court
carefully ascertained the voluntariness of appellant's plea,
and his plea agreement reflected the reciprocal arrangement
with the codefendant, we are not compelled to set aside the
plea. Cf. United States v. Martinez-Molina, 64 F.3d 719,
732-34 (1st Cir. 1995).
The sentencing proceedings reveal no clear error as to
the adjustments under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(4)(B) & 3B1.1(c)
or otherwise. And, by providing that the restitution order
was subject to reconsideration, the district court adequately
took into account appellant's ability to pay.
Appellant's remaining arguments do not merit further
comment.
We do not address appellant's claims regarding
ineffective assistance of counsel, as such claims must be
-2-
presented to the district court in the first instance in a
motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
-3-