Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Notice: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 States Unpublished Opinions May Be Cited Only in Related Cases.united States, Appellee, v. Porfilio Martinez Mejia, Petitioner, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 50 F.3d 1
March 27, 1995
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge ]
J. Michael McGuinness, McGuinness & Parlagreco on brief for appellant.
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, Margaret E. Curran and Zechariah Chafee, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for appellee.
D.R.I.
AFFIRMED.
Before TORRUELLA, Chief Judge, SELYA and BOUDIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Porfilio Martinez-Mejia appeals the denial by the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island of his pro se "motion to correct presentence investigation report." Since this motion was filed after the time for a direct appeal had expired, we treat the motion as one pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255.
Martinez-Mejia, now represented by counsel, raises three issues. First, he asserts certain factual "inaccuracies" in the presentence report [PSR]. Second, he claims that the district court erred in accepting the recommendation of the PSR and denying him a two level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Finally, he notes that the PSR states that he was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, whereas the judgment lists the offense as possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine.
Neither of the first two asserted claims alleges a constitutional or a jurisdictional error. Since Martinez-Mejia failed to pursue either claim on direct appeal, any error would warrant reversal only in "exceptional circumstances" and only if the error resulted in a "complete miscarriage of justice." Knight v. United States, 37 F.3d 769, 772 (1st Cir. 1994). We have reviewed carefully the record in this case and find nothing which indicates that justice miscarried.
As to third claim, Martinez-Mejia suffered no discernible prejudice from the variance between the offense as listed on the PSR and the offense as listed on the judgment. Nonetheless, we direct the district court to correct the record as appropriate. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
Affirmed.