United States v. Torrens ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-7683
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    GABRIEL MIGUEL TORRENS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CR-95-65-H, CA-99-46-4-H)
    Submitted:   February 24, 2000             Decided:   March 3, 2000
    Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gabriel Miguel Torrens, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Gabriel Miguel Torrens seeks to appeal the district court's
    order denying his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp.
    1999).    We have reviewed the record and the district court's opin-
    ion and find no reversible error.        Torrens claims on appeal that
    the government failed to disclose the testimony before the grand
    jury and statements of certain co-defendants, in violation of Brady
    v. Maryland, 
    373 U.S. 83
     (1963).       Torrens has failed to show cause
    and prejudice to excuse his failure to raise these claims on direct
    appeal.    See United States v. Frady, 
    456 U.S. 152
    , 170 (1982).    In
    any event, Torrens failed to establish a Brady violation.          See
    United States v. Sarihifard, 
    155 F.3d 301
    , 309 (4th Cir. 1998)
    (providing standard).    Torrens also claims on appeal that counsel
    was ineffective when he failed to object to the amount of drugs at-
    tributable to him and to the government's alleged Brady violations.
    We find that Torrens failed to establish counsel's ineffectiveness
    with regard to these claims.     See Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 688, 694 (1984).    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.       We dispense with oral argu-
    ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
    sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
    the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2