USCA1 Opinion
February 3, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1383
GREGORIO ROSARIO,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Gregorio Rosario on brief pro se. ________________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Heidi E. Brieger, ________________ ________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for respondent.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Petitioner Gregorio Rosario appeals the ___________
denial by the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts of his motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. Rosario
alleges that the district court erred both in the manner in
which it conducted the section 2255 proceedings and in its
dismissal of his petition. We affirm.
We find no error in the district court's conduct of the
section 2255 proceedings. First, even though the district
court required that Rosario have standby counsel, Rosario has
not produced any evidence that he lacked "a fair chance to
present his case in his own way." McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 ________ _______
U.S. 168, 177 (1984). Thus, he has failed to show any
abridgment of his right to self representation.1 Id. __
Second, we have reviewed the record in this case, including
the transcript of the surveillance tape, and find no abuse of
discretion in the district court's refusal to compel the
government's chief witness to testify during the habeas
proceedings. See Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing ___
Proceedings in the United States District Court Under Section
2255. We likewise find absolutely no evidence of bias on the
part of the district court in any of its rulings and
therefore find no error in the court's refusal to recuse
____________________
1. The legal right to self representation in civil cases is
guaranteed by 28 U.S.C. 1654.
itself from this case. See Liteky v. United States, 114 ___ ______ ______________
S.Ct. 1147, 1157 ("judicial rulings alone almost never
constitute valid basis for a bias or partiality motion").
As far as the substantive claims raised in Rosario's
habeas petition are concerned, we have reviewed carefully the
record in this case and the briefs of the parties. We find
that the district court adequately addressed all the claims
raised by Rosario in his petition. We also find, essentially
for the reasons given by the district court in its memoranda
and orders dated September 14, 1993, and March 21, 1994, that
Rosario has failed to show that he is entitled to relief
under section 2255.
Affirmed. ________
-3-