November 8, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-1164
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
ANDRES GONZALEZ,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
Andres Gonzalez on brief pro se.
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and F. Mark Terison,
Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
Per Curiam. Andres Gonzalez was convicted of
conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and
was ultimately sentenced to serve 210 months in jail. He now
appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence
under 28 U.S.C. 2255. We affirm.
Gonzalez claims that the district court erred in
sentencing him predicated on a finding that his base offense
level should be calculated on 15-49 kilograms of cocaine,
alleging that it found only that he had conspired to
distribute cocaine in excess of 10 kilograms. He also claims
that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel
by failing to object to this error at sentencing and on
appeal. The sentencing transcript shows clearly that the
court found that use of the 15-49 kilogram base offense level
was proper because Gonzalez had conspired to distribute in
excess of 15 kilograms of cocaine, and we affirmed that
finding on appeal. See United States v. Moreno, 947 F.2d 7,
8-9 (1st Cir. 1991). The sentencing transcript passage to
which Gonzalez refers is either a mistranscription of the
court's comments or an inadvertent misstatement by the court.
Because Gonzalez's claim of error by the court is meritless,
so, too, is the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
based on it.
Gonzalez also argues that the court had no
jurisdiction to sentence him on amounts of cocaine he agreed
-2-
to provide in negotiations with government agents since his
co-conspirator had not participated in those negotiations and
had not agreed to provide such amounts. He avers further
that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel
by not arguing such lack of jurisdiction at sentencing or on
direct appeal. Because these claims were not presented to
the district court, they are not before us and we decline to
consider them. See United States v. Ocasio-Rivera, 991 F.2d
1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993).
Affirmed.
-3-