Leon-Ayala v. United States
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Leon-Ayala v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 82 F.3d 403 →
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
April 5, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1868
TEDDY LEON-AYALA,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Teddy Leon-Ayala on brief pro se. ________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles Espinosa, _____________ _______________________
Senior Litigation Counsel, and Warren Vazquez, Assistant U.S. _______________
Attorney, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Petitioner challenges the denial of a __________
motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate or correct his
sentence. We affirm.
Petitioner was convicted by a jury, along with his
codefendants, of conspiring to possess, and possession of,
cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.
841(a)(1), 846. A charge of use of a firearm in relation
to a drug offense under 21 U.S.C. 924(c)(1), was dismissed
by the court for insufficient evidence, and a judgment of
acquittal entered thereon under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29.
Petitioner's conviction and sentence (to 95 months'
imprisonment) were affirmed on appeal. United States v. _____________
Torres-Maldonado, 14 F.3d 95, 99, 103-05 (1st Cir.), cert. ________________ _____
denied, 115 S. Ct. 193 (1994). ______
The focus of petitioner's 2255 attack is a two
level enhancement of his sentence for possession of a firearm
in connection with a drug offense under U.S.S.G.
2D1.1(b)(1). (1) He argues that his counsel rendered
ineffective assistance by failing to object, or failing to
support an objection, to the sentencing increase in light of
his acquittal of the firearms charge under 18 U.S.C.
924(c)(1). The claim is belied by the record which shows
that counsel made a detailed objection at the sentencing
hearing, supported by reasoned argument. The sentencing
enhancement was imposed over this objection because the court
-2-
found the facts sufficient to satisfy the lesser burden of
proof required for the enhancement, in that petitioner could
have reasonably foreseen his accomplice's possession of a
weapon, and there was sufficient evidence connecting the drug
offenses to weapons found at the scene. As to counsel's
failure to renew the objection on appeal, petitioner offers
no reason to suspect that this was other than a deliberate
strategic decision, nor that he reasonably could have
expected to succeed in an appellate challenge to the trial
court's fact-based determination. See United States v. Vega- ___ _____________ _____
Encarnacion, 914 F.2d 20, 24 (1st Cir. 1990) (explaining that ___________
a sentencing court's assessment of the factual record will be
set aside only if "clearly erroneous"), cert. denied, 499 _____________
U.S. 977 (1991); see also Lema v. United States, 987 F.2d 48, ________ ____ _____________
51 (1st Cir. 1993) (explaining elements needed to sustain a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). We thus see no
"clear error" in the district court's rejection of
petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the
basis of the record facts. See id. at 53. ___ ___
(2) Petitioner argues that because two co-
defendants won reversals on appeal of their firearms
convictions under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1), the sentence
enhancement petitioner received "as a result of their _____
convictions in the district court should be vacated."
-3-
Apprehending no basis for the connection petitioner has
drawn, we reject this contention.
(3) Petitioner argues in a supplement to his
brief that the sentence enhancement should be set aside in
light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bailey v. United ______ ______
States, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), decided during the pendency of ______
this appeal. We need not decide whether Bailey retroactively ______
applies to this collateral proceeding, because the decision
does not support, but undermines petitioner's argument. In
Bailey the Court defined the word "use" in 18 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Leon-Ayala v. United States, (1st Cir. 1996).
Leon-Ayala v. United States (Leon-Ayala v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bailey v. United States
516 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court, 1995)
United States v. Torres Maldonado
14 F.3d 95 (First Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Gary
74 F.3d 304 (First Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Victor Vega-Encarnacion, United States v. Hector Orlando Cruz-Rosario
914 F.2d 20 (First Circuit, 1990)
Charles D. Lema v. United States
987 F.2d 48 (First Circuit, 1993)