Maravilla v. United States

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

September 3, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 96-1237



                               DANIEL JOSEPH MARAVILLA,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,



                                 Defendant, 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.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Daniel Joseph Maravilla on brief pro se.
            _______________________

            Deval  L. Patrick,  Assistant Attorney  General, David  K.  Flynn,
            _________________                                ________________

        Attorney,  Department of  Justice, and  Marie K.  McElderry, Attorney,
                                                ___________________

        Department of Justice, on brief for appellee.


____________________


____________________



                 Per Curiam.  Daniel  Joseph Maravilla appeals the denial
                 __________



of  his motion filed pursuant to  28 U.S.C.   2255.  Although



            he raised numerous issues in that motion, he has confined his



            appeal to his claim that the government's failure to disclose



            two FBI-302  reports violated  its obligation under  Brady v.
                                                                 _____



            Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and  its progeny.  We deem  the
            ________



            remaining issues raised in the   2255 motion waived.



                 We have  carefully reviewed the parties'  briefs and the



            record   on  appeal  as  to  the  Brady  issue.    We  affirm
                                              _____



            essentially for  the reasons  stated in the  district court's



            opinion.   Maravilla v. United States, 901 F. Supp. 62, 64-66
                       _________    _____________



            (D.P.R. 1995).  We add only the following.



                 Contrary to  Maravilla's contention, the  district court



            neither  applied  the wrong  legal  standard  nor abused  its



            discretion in its ruling.  And, insofar as Maravilla suggests



            that  an erroneous application of law  or abuse of discretion



            is  grounds   for  sua  sponte  recusal,   he  is  incorrect.



            Contentions  that  the district  court  erred  or abused  its



            discretion in  its ruling are routine grounds for appeal, not



            recusal.  See Liteky  v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157
                      ___ ______     _____________



            (1994).



                 Affirmed.
                 _________


-3-