U.S. v. Fuentes-Lozano, FUENTES-LOZAN
| Decision Date | 09 August 1979 |
| Docket Number | R,No. 78-5202,FUENTES-LOZAN,78-5202 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodosvaldooman Elias Perez, Antonio Rotella-Galindo, Raul Rodriguez-Pena, Issac Padron-Figueroa and Daniel Rodriguez, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Henry Gonzalez, Miami, Fla., Frank K. Martin, Columbus, Ga., for defendants-appellants.
Joseph D. Newman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Savannah, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
Before TUTTLE, GODBOLD and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.
Appellants were convicted on two counts of conspiracy to import and conspiracy to distribute a large quantity of marijuana. In this appeal they have raised several points that relate to alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel. The court pointed out at oral argument that ineffectiveness of counsel in a federal case is ordinarily presented under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and that the record now before the court may not be complete enough for an adequate determination of the issue. 1 Thereafter, appellants have, by letter to the court, withdrawn their points I, II and III, and wish to reserve the right to present them in the context of a claim of ineffective counsel by collateral attack. Thus, we only consider their points IV, V and VI.
Allegedly improper remarks made by the trial judge some eight months after the trial, in considering a motion for new trial, were not reversible error. The contention that the remarks indicated a disqualifying racial or ethnic bias against defendants, who were natives of Cuba or South America, is too attenuated to require discussion. The judge's remarks concerning the necessity of bringing to a close an extended motion for new trial hearing were not even arguably improper.
The defendant Padron-Figueroa testified that he first met co-defendant Arbelaez-Arbelaez November 30, 1977, and had no prior significant personal or business contacts with him. Arbelaez-Arbelaez had jumped bond and did not appear for trial. The government introduced over objection Arbelaez-Arbelaez's bail bond, executed soon after November 30, in the amount of $325,000, signed by Padron-Figueroa as surety. The purpose was to show that Padron-Figueroa must have known Arbelaez-Arbelaez better than he had said, otherwise he would not have assumed a surety's obligation of $325,000. We agree with the district court that the evidence tended to impeach...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Siviglia
...decided an appeal on the merits following the district court's apparent denial of the motion for new trial. See United States v. Fuentes-Lozano, 600 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1979). The jurisdictional basis for subsequent review of the case on the merits cannot be clearly In the case at bar an unc......
-
U.S. v. Lopez
...This court followed Cronic in United States v. Fuentes-Lozano, 580 F.2d 724 (5th Cir.1978), appeal after remand on other grounds, 600 F.2d 552 (5th Cir.1979). De La Garza, however, filed his Motion for New Trial before filing the Notice of Appeal. Therefore, the procedure outlined in Cronic......
-
U.S. v. Curry, 80-2290
...ineffectiveness of counsel on direct appeal when the contentions made involve only matters of record. United States v. Fuentes-Lozano, 600 F.2d 552, 553 n.1 (5th Cir. 1979). Normally this Court will decline to review such a claim where an evidentiary hearing is necessary. United States v. C......