United States v. Diminico

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

United States v. Diminico

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion












February 13, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________


No. 95-1756

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY A. DIMINICO,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Jeffrey A. Diminico on brief pro se. ___________________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, Mark D. Seltzer, _________________ __________________
Director, New England Bank Fraud Task Force, Fraud Section, Criminal
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Anita S. Lichtblau and Paul M. __________________ _______
Glickman, Trial Attorneys, New England Bank Fraud Task Force, Fraud ________
Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, on brief for
appellee.


____________________



















____________________
Per Curiam. Jeffrey A. Diminico appeals the ___________

district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The

sole argument made in this motion is that the district court

improperly delegated to the United States Probation Office

the task of setting a payment schedule for restitution.1 1

Diminico did not raise this issue at sentencing, and he did

not pursue a direct appeal. A 2255 motion cannot serve as

a substitute for appeal. See United States v. Frady, 456 ___ _____________ _____

U.S. 152, 165 (1982). Having failed to raise his claim of

unauthorized delegation of judicial authority on direct

appeal, Diminico cannot raise it on collateral attack absent

a showing of cause for the failure and actual prejudice. See ___

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991); Knight v. _______ ________ ______

United States, 37 F.3d 769, 773-74 (1st Cir. 1994). Since ______________

Diminico has not even attempted to meet the cause-and-

prejudice requirement, we affirm the denial of his 2255

motion.

Affirmed. ________








____________________

1On appeal, Diminico raises additional challenges to the 1
district court's restitution order. Since these issues were
not presented in his 2255 motion, we deem them waived. See ___
Singleton v. United States, 26 F.3d 233, 240 (1st Cir.), _________ ______________
cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 51 (1994). ____________






Reference

Status
Published