United States v. Toro-Aristizibal

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

November 3, 1992      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

___________________

Nos. 92-1751
               92-1752

UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                               AMPARO TORO-ARISTIZABAL,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

__________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                          Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges,
                                             ______________

                                 ___________________

               Amparo Toro-Aristizabal on brief pro se.
               _______________________
               A. John  Pappalardo, United States Attorney,  and Stephen P.
               ___________________                               __________
          Heymann, Assistant United States  Attorney, on Motion for Summary
          _______
          Disposition for appellee.

__________________

                                 __________________ 

Per  Curiam.     On  this  consolidated appeal,  we
                      ___________

            summarily  affirm the district  court's denial of appellant's

            "Motion for  Stay of Judgment" as  moot.  We also  affirm the

            district court's  denial of  appellant's  "Motion to  Correct

            Judgment and  Commitment Order Restitution on  Count Three of

            the Indictment,"  which was improperly brought  under Fed. R.

            Crim.  P. 35(a).  This affirmance is without prejudice to any

            rights appellant  may  have to  pursue  a petition  under  28

            U.S.C.    2255,  should she  contend that relief  is properly

            available to her under that statute.

                  So ordered.
                  __________

-2-