Cuevas Morales v. United States

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

          September 10, 1992    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 91-2280

CARLOS CUEVAS MORALES,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

__________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                 ___________________

               Carlos Wilfredo Cuevas-Morales on brief pro se.
               ______________________________
               Daniel  F. Lopez  Romo, United  States Attorney,  and Warren
               ______________________                                ______
          Vazquez, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
          _______

__________________

                                  __________________

Per Curiam.  Appellant seeks to  appeal a district court
                 __________

            judgment dismissing his motion, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  

            2255.    Appellant  failed  to  file  any  objection  to  the

            magistrate's  report and  recommendation, however, and  so is

            precluded from  obtaining appellate  review.  Thomas  v. Arn,
                                                          ______     ___

            474 U.S.  140 (1985);  United States v.  Valencia-Copete, 792
                                   _____________     _______________

            F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986).

                 Appellant, who  is now proceeding pro  se, suggests that

            we ought not to penalize him for this  failure of his counsel

            below.  That indulgence, assuming we would grant it, however,

            avails  appellant nothing.   We have reviewed  the record and

            the briefs  on appeal and,  were we to  reach the  merits, we

            would  affirm  essentially  for  the reasons  stated  in  the

            Magistrate's  Report and Recommendation,  dated September 16,

            1991.    In  short,  appellant  was  not  prejudiced  by  his

            counsel's failure.

                 Appeal dismissed.
                 _________________

-2-