Reyes-Rivera v. United States

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

June 10, 1994         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ___________________

No. 93-2301

LUCAS REYES-RIVERA,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Respondent.

__________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                              Torruella, Selya and Cyr,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ___________________

               Lucas Reyes-Rivera on brief pro se.
               __________________
               Edwin  J.  Gale, United  States  Attorney,  and Margaret  E.
               _______________                                 ____________
          Curran, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
          ______

__________________

                                  __________________

Per  Curiam.        We  affirm  the   dismissal  of
                      ___________

            appellant's    2255 petition  for the reasons  stated in  the

            government's brief and in our December 3, 1991 opinion.  That

            opinion rejected appellant's   challenge to  (1) a two  level

            upward adjustment for managerial role and (2) denial of a two

            level reduction for acceptance  of responsibility.  Appellant

            may not  relitigate in  a    2255 petition arguments  already

            rejected  on direct appeal.   United  States v.  Michaud, 901
                                          ______________     _______

            F.2d  5,6 (1st Cir. 1990); Tracey v. United States, 739 F.2d,
                                       ______    _____________

            679, 682 (1st Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109 (1985).
                                      ____  ______

            Appellant's contention  that he was improperly  denied a four

            level reduction for minimal  participant status fails for the

            very reasons we upheld the two level increase for  managerial

            role.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

-2-