US v. Hammed
Case Date: 09/08/1994
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 93-1894
|
September 8, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 93-1894 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. ALLI HAMMED, Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________ ____________________ Before Cyr, Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Ali Hammed on brief pro se. __________ Arthur R. Silen on brief for petitioner. _______________ Edwin J. Gale, United States Attorney, Margaret E. Curran and ______________ ____________________ Zechariah Chafee, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for _________________ appellee. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. We have fully reviewed the record and __________ briefs, including defendant's pro se briefs and motions, and conclude the appeal is meritless, largely for the reasons stated in the government's briefs. To the extent defendant is contending that counsel was ineffective in failing to move to dismiss the indictment because of governmental perjury, we find no ineffective assistance of counsel. The facts defendant describes do not rise to the level of perjury and do not warrant dismissal of the indictment. As for the remainder of defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, we do not reach them because they are dependent upon factual assertions outside the record. United States v. _________________ Mala, 7 F.3d 1058, 1063 (1st Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 ____ ____________ S.Ct. 1839 (1994). All of defendant's motions, including his request for transcripts, to correct the presentence report, and to hold the prosecutor and Agent Botelho in contempt, are denied. Affirmed. ________ |