USA v. Hudson
Case Date: 09/29/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 95-1269
|
September 29, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 95-1269 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. RICHARD B. HUDSON, SR., Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Richard B. Hudson, Sr. on brief pro se. ______________________ Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and F. Mark Terison, _________________ ________________ Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. The judgment is affirmed substantially for __________ the reasons recited by the Magistrate-Judge in his Report and Recommendation dated December 14, 1994. We add that defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, even if properly before us, would necessarily fail on the merits. Contrary to defendant's suggestion, the record before us discloses no significant discrepancies between the debriefing statements, on the one hand, and the trial testimony, on the other, of the two witnesses in question. And as we had occasion to observe in our decision on direct appeal, see ___ United States v. Hudson, 970 F.2d 948, 950-54 (1st Cir. 1992) _____________ ______ (passim), co-defense counsel conducted a diligent cross- ______ examination of these and all other witnesses. Affirmed. _________ -3- |