USCA1 Opinion
September 8, 1994
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 93-1894
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
ALLI HAMMED,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________
____________________
Before
Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Ali Hammed on brief pro se.
__________
Arthur R. Silen on brief for petitioner.
_______________
Edwin J. Gale, United States Attorney, Margaret E. Curran and
______________ ____________________
Zechariah Chafee, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for
_________________
appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. We have fully reviewed the record and
__________
briefs, including defendant's pro se briefs and motions, and
conclude the appeal is meritless, largely for the reasons
stated in the government's briefs. To the extent defendant
is contending that counsel was ineffective in failing to move
to dismiss the indictment because of governmental perjury, we
find no ineffective assistance of counsel. The facts
defendant describes do not rise to the level of perjury and
do not warrant dismissal of the indictment. As for the
remainder of defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel
claims, we do not reach them because they are dependent upon
factual assertions outside the record. United States v.
_________________
Mala, 7 F.3d 1058, 1063 (1st Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114
____ ____________
S.Ct. 1839 (1994). All of defendant's motions, including his
request for transcripts, to correct the presentence report,
and to hold the prosecutor and Agent Botelho in contempt, are
denied.
Affirmed.
________