Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Guillermo Zuluaga Aristizabal v. United States, 961 F.2d 1565, 1st Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The appellant sought an injunction ordering his release on parole, but the district court correctly denied it because under precedents like United States v. De Los Santos-Himitola, the no-parole provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 that applied to the appellant's offense became effective before he committed it. On appeal, the appellant raised new claims not presented in his initial injunction request, and the court declined to review these new claims, noting it had previously dismissed a similar postconviction motion from the appellant for lack of prosecution. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the injunction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Guillermo Zuluaga Aristizabal v. United States, 961 F.2d 1565, 1st Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    The appellant sought an injunction ordering his release on parole, but the district court correctly denied it because under precedents like United States v. De Los Santos-Himitola, the no-parole provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 that applied to the appellant's offense became effective before he committed it. On appeal, the appellant raised new claims not presented in his initial injunction request, and the court declined to review these new claims, noting it had previously dismissed a similar postconviction motion from the appellant for lack of prosecution. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the injunction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1992-05-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 961 F.2d 1565 Docket: 91-1852

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The appellant sought an injunction ordering his release on parole, but the district court correctly denied it because under precedents like United States v. De Los Santos-Himitola, the no-parole provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 that applied to the appellant's offense became effective before he committed it. On appeal, the appellant raised new claims not presented in his initial injunction request, and the court declined to review these new claims, noting it had previously dismissed a similar postconviction motion from the appellant for lack of prosecution. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the injunction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    11 views2 pages

    Guillermo Zuluaga Aristizabal v. United States, 961 F.2d 1565, 1st Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The appellant sought an injunction ordering his release on parole, but the district court correctly denied it because under precedents like United States v. De Los Santos-Himitola, the no-parole provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 that applied to the appellant's offense became effective before he committed it. On appeal, the appellant raised new claims not presented in his initial injunction request, and the court declined to review these new claims, noting it had previously dismissed a similar postconviction motion from the appellant for lack of prosecution. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the injunction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    961 F.

    2d 1565

    NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished


    opinions may be cited only in related cases.
    Guillermo Zuluaga ARISTIZABAL, Petitioner, Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, Appellee.
    No. 91-1852.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    First Circuit.
    May 7, 1992

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto
    Rico
    Guillermo Zuluaga Aristizabal on brief pro se.
    Daniel F. Lopez-Romo, United States Attorney, and Luis A. Plaza,
    Assistant United States Attorney, on brief, for appellee.
    Before Breyer, Chief Judge, Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam.

    The appellant sought an injunction ordering the Parole Commission and the
    Bureau of Prisons to compute his sentence as allowing parole eligibility. The
    district court correctly concluded that appellant is not eligible for parole.
    United States v. De Los Santos-Himitola, 924 F.2d 380, 381 (1st Cir. 1991)
    (holding that the no-parole provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986
    became effective on October 27, 1986); Padilla Palacios v. United States, 932
    F.2d 31, 33-34 (1st Cir. 1991) (applying the rationale of Gozlon-Peretz v.
    United States, 111 S. Ct. 840 (1991), to the parallel provisions in 21 U.S.C.
    960).

    On appeal, appellant raises issues different from that which he presented to the
    district court in his request for an injunction. We do not review claims not

    raised below. See, e.g., Johnston v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 595 F.2d 890, 894 (1st
    Cir. 1979). And, these claims are not " 'so compelling as virtually to insure
    appellant's success' " nor does it appear that " 'a gross miscarriage of justice
    would occur' " unless we review them. Id. (citations omitted). Moreover, we
    note that the claims that appellant now makes on appeal are similar, if not
    identical, to claims raised in an earlier postconviction motion, the appeal from
    which we dismissed for lack of prosecution in 1990.
    3

    Affirmed.

    You might also like