United States v. Khoury

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

February 14, 1996

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ___________________


No.  95-1323


UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,



                                          v.


JAMIL KHOURY,

                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________


ERRATA SHEET



               The opinion of  this Court  issued on February  12, 1996  is

          amended as follows:



               On  the  cover  sheet, last  line  before  the date,  change

          "appellee" to "appellant."



February 12, 1996     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 95-1323 



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                    JAMIL KHOURY,



                                Defendant, Appellant.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________



                                 ____________________



            Daniel  S.  Tarlow,  Richard  D. Glovsky  and  Glovsky,  Tarlow  &
            __________________   ___________________       ___________________

        Milberg on brief for appellant.
        _______


____________________


____________________


2



Per Curiam.  After carefully  reviewing the record,
                      __________



            we  conclude the  appeal is  wholly  without merit  and allow



            counsel's motion to withdraw.  The guilty plea colloquy fully



            complied with  Fed. R. Civ. P.  11, and there is  no basis on



            the  present record  for  concluding that  the  plea was  not



            voluntarily, intelligently, and understandingly entered.  The



            district court's failure to warn defendant of the immigration



            consequences of his  plea is  not a basis  for relief.   See,
                                                                     ___



            e.g.,  United States v.  Quin, 836 F.  2d 654,  655 (1st Cir.
            ____   _____________     ____



            1987);  Nunez  Cordero v.  United States, 533  F.2d 723,  726
                    ______________     _____________



            (1st Cir. 1976).



                      Outlining several  claims, appellate counsel   asks



            that  we direct the district court to appoint counsel to file



            a   2255 petition.  We decline to do so.   The district court



            is in  the best position  to make  the initial  determination



            whether counsel should be appointed.



                      The judgment  is affirmed and  counsel's motion  to
                                       ________



            withdraw is granted.


3