Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 93-1751
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
ALBERT L. GIOVANELLA, III,
Defendant, Appellant.
_________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U. S. District Judge]
____________________
_________________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
_____________
_________________________
__________________________
__________________________
Per Curiam.
Per Curiam.
___________
appellant Albert
We
address
each
In
this
L. Giovanella,
of
them
criminal
appeal,
III, advances
briefly (albeit
not
defendant-
three arguments.
in
the
order
presented).
I
I
Appellant challenges his
indictment on
U.S.C.
the
ground that
1956(a)(1)
The
sales."
language
of
By its
involving
statute
suggests
terms, the
no
wire
1956(a)(1)(A)(1).
fraud
affecting financial
See 18 U.S.C.
___
Count
1956(a)(1)(A)(1).
822-23 (5th Cir.
301 (9th
therefore,
properly
of
wire-fraud
conviction reaches
so specified.
under
section
818,
18
of appellant's actions,
Cir. 1993);
the
conducting
institutions was
1956(c)(7)(1)(D) (1988).
was,
1217-18 (3d
At the time
such
no court,
We
with
proceeds
statute of
48.
Count X of
essence,
the
18
this argument.
in
of the
conviction,
appellant,
transactions
activities.
statute of
Appellant's Brief at
the
given credence to
charged
financial
the
conviction on Count X
Montoya, 945
_______
F.2d 298,
F.2d 1068,
Appellant
also
court
challenges
to Count X.
must
rational jury
element
of the
States v.
______
crime beyond
sufficiency
Following a
scrutinize
the
the
the
guilty verdict, a
record,
drawing
all
of
reasonable doubt.
675, 677 (1st Cir.
proved each
See
___
United
______
1993); United
______
States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 711 (1st Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
______
_____
_____ ______
113 S. Ct. 1005 (1993).
proof
by
either
direct
or
circumstantial
evidence.
See
___
910 (1989).
a guilty
verdict
could appropriately
jury's determination
be
draws its
reached; it
is
essence from
is more than
adequate.
If the
jury believed
either Dr.
940 F.2d 722, 730 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 2301,
_____ ______
(1992)
either
man's
testimony was
section
and that
sufficient
the fraud
1956(a)(1)(A)(1).
believe both
That
witnesses simply
to show
that
came within
the jury
adds frosting
the
was
at
to the
Amendment provides
receive
Const. amend.
this protection
acceptable standards of
benefit of
VI.
that persons
counsel for
Appellant
because
proficiency.
their defense.
says that
his attorney
We do not
accused of
he
performed
did not
below
have held
with
that fact-specific
regularity
claims of
bordering
on
the
ineffective assistance
at 9-10
Oct. 27,
(1st Cir.
1993)
Natanel, 938
_______
accord,
______
1991);
F.2d 302,
309 (1st
Cir. 1991),
878 F.2d
21, 22 (1st
F.2d 827,
829 (1st
claims of ineffective
analysis
the
890
dominated
(footnote omitted);
since
must
Kobrosky, 711
________
salutary purpose:
assistance involve a
defendant
815
show,
binary, factfirst,
that
the
deficient
performance
prejudiced
the
defense,
see
___
not be
appellate tribunal.
addressed in the
such claims
first instance
by an
F.2d at 22.
Moreover,
position
representation
to
assess
afforded to the
and the
impact of any
slip op.
at 10, his
ineffective
both
reasoned
and
the
of
defendant in the
claims.
instance"
record
For
review
of
the
legal
district court
representation," Mala,
____
quality
shortfall in that
assistance
undertaken "first
the
these
in assessing
reasons
ineffective
we
assistance
is
sufficiently
consideration of the
developed
arguments presented.
have
to
not in
allow
See, e.g.,
___ ____
satisfactorily
address either
prong
of
the Strickland
__________
inquiry.
Hence,
the
issue
of
ineffective
assistance
is
no further.
however, to
We affirm
appellant's right
to raise
his
to 28 U.S.C.
2255.
We express no opinion as to
It is so ordered.
It is so ordered.
________________