Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    United States v. Panzardi Lespier, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case. It summarizes that: 1) The defendant appealed his conviction of conspiring to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. 2) The Court found that the defendant waived his right to object to the indictment, as he did not raise issues with it before trial. 3) The Court also found that the defendant waived his right to request severance of counts or defendants, as he did not raise this issue before trial as required. 4) As a result, the Court affirmed the defendant's conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Panzardi Lespier, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    28 views8 pages
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case. It summarizes that: 1) The defendant appealed his conviction of conspiring to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. 2) The Court found that the defendant waived his right to object to the indictment, as he did not raise issues with it before trial. 3) The Court also found that the defendant waived his right to request severance of counts or defendants, as he did not raise this issue before trial as required. 4) As a result, the Court affirmed the defendant's conviction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-03-06 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 95-2008

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case. It summarizes that: 1) The defendant appealed his conviction of conspiring to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. 2) The Court found that the defendant waived his right to object to the indictment, as he did not raise issues with it before trial. 3) The Court also found that the defendant waived his right to request severance of counts or defendants, as he did not raise this issue before trial as required. 4) As a result, the Court affirmed the defendant's conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    28 views8 pages

    United States v. Panzardi Lespier, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case. It summarizes that: 1) The defendant appealed his conviction of conspiring to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. 2) The Court found that the defendant waived his right to object to the indictment, as he did not raise issues with it before trial. 3) The Court also found that the defendant waived his right to request severance of counts or defendants, as he did not raise this issue before trial as required. 4) As a result, the Court affirmed the defendant's conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 8

    USCA1 Opinion

    March 6, 1996

    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

    ____________________

    No. 95-2008

    UNITED STATES,

    Appellee,

    v.

    SANTIAGO PANZARDI LESPIER,

    Defendant, Appellant.

    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

    [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, Senior U.S. District Judge]


    __________________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Torruella, Chief Judge,


    ___________
    Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ____________________
    Elfrick Mendez Morales on brief for appellant.
    ______________________

    John C. Keeney, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Theresa M.B.


    ______________
    ____________

    Van Vliet, Chief, Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice, Phi


    _________
    ___

    Urofsky, Trial Attorney, Criminal Division Department of Justice, o


    _______
    brief for appellee.

    ____________________

    ____________________

    Per Curiam.
    ___________

    Defendant

    Santiago Panzardi-Lespier

    appeals from the district court judgment and sentence entered

    on

    jury

    verdict

    finding him

    guilty

    of

    conspiring

    to

    distribute more than 1000 pounds of marijuana in violation of

    21

    U.S.C.

    841(a)(1) and 846 and possessing less than 1000

    pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of

    21 U.S.C.

    841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C.

    2.

    We briefly address

    the two major points defendant raises on appeal.

    1.

    We need not

    resolve defendant's argument

    that the

    district court erred in not dismissing the indictment because

    no

    evidence linking

    defendant

    presented to the grand jury.

    to the

    alleged offense

    Defendant waived that objection

    to the indictment by not raising it before the trial.

    States
    ______

    was

    United
    ______

    v. Mack, 892 F.2d 134, 135-136 (1st Cir. 1989), cert.


    ____
    _____

    denied, 498 U.S. 859 (1990); Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b).


    ______

    Defendant has offered no

    comply with

    relief

    Rule 12, and he has made no showing of cause for

    from the waiver.

    Further, in ruling on defendant's

    2255 petition, the district

    claim

    explanation for his failure to

    of ineffective

    court specifically rejected

    assistance of

    counsel for

    his

    failure to

    object to the indictment, and defendant has not appealed from

    that

    ruling.

    Accordingly

    we

    will not

    consider

    his late

    challenge to the indictment.

    2.

    Defendant

    prejudiced by

    also

    argues that

    spillover evidence

    -22

    he was

    substantially

    from the other

    counts and

    defendants

    and

    that the

    district

    severance of counts and defendants.

    that

    argument because

    defendant

    court

    erred in

    denying

    We also need not resolve

    waived this

    objection

    by

    failing to raise it before trial.

    Requests

    for severance

    of counts

    or

    defendants under

    Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 must be raised prior to

    trial.

    Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(5);

    United States v. McLaughlin,


    _____________
    __________

    957 F.2d 12, 18 (1st Cir. 1992).

    Defendant first

    raised his claim for severance in the

    2255 petition filed five years after

    will not consider it now.

    Affirmed.
    ________

    Loc.R. 27.1.

    trial.

    Accordingly, we

    -33

    You might also like