[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-1132
PETER N. GEORGACARAKOS,
Petitioner,
v.
J.D. LAMER,
Respondent.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Peter N. Georgacarakos on brief pro se.
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and Michael M. DuBose,
Assistant United States Attorney, on motion for summary dismissal for
appellee.
August 16, 1995
Per Curiam. Appellant Peter N. Georgacarakos
appeals from the denial of a motion to vacate his sentence
filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255. After reviewing the record and
the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the district
court for the reasons set forth in the December 13, 1994
Recommended Decision of the magistrate judge (adopted by the
district court judge on December 27, 1994). We add the
following comments.
First, it is clear that appellant's claims in the
current 2255 motion are based on the same ground as the
claim he presented in the previous 2255 proceeding --
counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise
an entrapment defense. Thus, the district court did not err
in dismissing appellant's motion as successive. See Rule
9(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United
States District Courts ("[a] second or successive motion may
be dismissed if the judge finds that it fails to allege new
or different grounds for relief and the prior determination
was on the merits").
Second, appellant's assertion that his attorney did
not present any defense at trial plainly is wrong; counsel
specifically argued that venue was not proper in the district
of Maine. That we rejected this argument on direct appeal
does not transform appellant's trial into one of which it
could be said that no defense was mounted. As a result, even
if we were to consider appellant's 2255 motion on the
merits, it would fail.
Affirmed.
-3-