USCA1 Opinion
February 8, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 94-1683
JUSTINIANO CUEVAS-BURGOS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Appellee.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
___________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
___________________
Justiniano Cuevas-Burgos on brief pro se. ________________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles ______________ ________________
Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Jorge E. Vega Pacheco, ________ ______________________
Chief Criminal Division, on brief for appellee.
__________________
__________________
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the trial __________
transcripts and affirm the denial of petitioner's 2255
petition.
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence. The evidence was fully ___________________________
sufficient to support the convictions. The jury was not
required to believe Pagan's testimony absolving petitioner
and instead was entitled to credit the government's evidence
that petitioner had requested Rodriguez Vega to supply the
cocaine and had participated in the cocaine negotiations.
2. Speedy Trial Act. Petitioner has not identified any ________________
speedy trial act violation. Petitioner's contention that
only the four days during which Rodriguez Vega was actually
being examined by a physician were excludable is wrong. 18
U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(A) (excluding "delay resulting from any
proceeding, including any examinations, to determine the __________
mental competency . . . of the defendant") (emphasis added);
United States v. Anello, 765 F.2d 253, 255-56 (1st Cir.), ________________________
cert. denied, 474 U.S. 996 (1985); United States v. Zielie, ____________ ________________________
734 F.2d 1447, 1454 (11th Cir. 1984) (a time exclusion which
applies to one defendant applies to all co-defendants), cert. _____
denied, 469 U.S. 1189, 1216 (1985). ______
3. Prejudicial Publicity. Petitioner's claim of _______________________
prejudicial publicity is meritless. First, the publicity, as
described by petitioner, was much less extensive and
prejudicial than in other cases in which prejudicial
publicity claims have been rejected. See, e.g., United ___ ____ ______
States v. Angiulo, 897 F.2d 1169, 1181-83 (1st Cir.), cert. _________________ _____
denied, 498 U.S. 845 (1990); United States v. Moreno Morales, ______ _______________________________
815 F.2d 725, 730-36 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 966 ____________
(1987). Second, prior to trial, Judge Acosta questioned the
panel from which the jury was chosen whether anyone had read
or heard anything about the case. There were no affirmative
responses. In view of the lack of response to the voir dire
inquiry, there is no evidence any juror was exposed to pre-
trial publicity and hence no basis to find prejudice prior to
trial. United States v. Samalot Perez, 767 F.2d 1, 5 (1st _______________________________
Cir. 1985) ("[w]hen a trial judge has conducted a voir dire
examination with questions effectively designed to unveil any
impartiality, then we will set aside his action `only where
juror prejudice is manifest'"). As for any publicity during
the trial, Judge Acosta told the jurors not to listen to
media accounts and to decide the case solely on the evidence
presented in court. Jurors are presumed to follow
instructions. United States v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230, 263 ________________________
(1st Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 849 (1990). ____________
4. Jurors' Linguistic Competency. There is no basis to _____________________________
believe that the jurors were not competent to understand
English. During empanelment, each spoke briefly in English.
Most had already served as jurors on at least one trial
conducted in English. That the jury asked for further
explanation of technical legal terms does not show inability _____
to understand English. _______
5. We have considered all of petitioner's appellate
arguments, including his claims of ineffective assistance
-3-
of counsel, and find them meritless.
Affirmed. ________
-4-