USCA1 Opinion
October 7, 1993
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 93-1092
JOSEPH F. DRUAN,
Petitioner, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Frank H. Freedman, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Joseph F. Druan on brief pro se.
_______________
A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, and Andrew Levchuk,
___________________ _______________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Appellant Joseph F. Druan appeals from
__________
the denial of his petition for habeas corpus filed under 28
U.S.C. 2255. After carefully reviewing the record and the
parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the district court
for essentially the reasons stated in its Order dated January
5, 1993. We add to that decision the following comments.
The district court properly disposed of this case
without a hearing. "An evidentiary hearing is not required
where the section 2255 petition, any accompanying exhibits,
and the record evidence `plainly [reveal] . . . that the
movant is not entitled to relief. . . . '" Barrett v. United
_______ ______
States, 965 F.2d 1184, 1186 (1st Cir. 1992) (quoting Rule
______
4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings). That is,
summary dismissal is appropriate where the grounds for relief
are not cognizable under 2255 or are merely bald assertions
without specific and particular factual allegations. Id. We
___
agree with the district court that the petition was deficient
in both regards.
Further, Druan did not submit any valid reasons why
he now should be relieved of the statements he made in his
change-of-plea hearing. See Ouellette v. United States, 862
___ _________ _____________
F.2d 371, 374 (1st Cir. 1988). His claims in this regard are
based on facts with which the district court judge was
familiar because he had presided at both the Rule 11 and
sentencing hearings. As such, he was entitled to make
findings without an additional hearing and we will not
overturn his findings absent clear error. See Barrett, 965
___ _______
F.2d at 1186; Panzardi-Alvarez v. United States, 879 F.2d
________________ _____________
975, 985 n.8 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1082
____________
(1990). Under this standard of review, the district court
judge's findings that Druan's guilty plea was voluntary and
that his counsel provided effective assistance are more than
adequately supported by the record.
As for Druan's attempt to argue that his 2255
petition raised a jurisdictional issue because no "overt
acts" had occurred in Massachusetts, we note only that at the
change-of-plea hearing the government plainly set forth the
fact that the videotape, made in Connecticut, was transported
to Massachusetts. Druan, at this hearing, specifically
agreed with this description of the facts.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
________
-3-