USCA1 Opinion
March 6, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-2008
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
SANTIAGO PANZARDI LESPIER,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Elfrick Mendez Morales on brief for appellant. ______________________
John C. Keeney, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Theresa M.B. ______________ ____________
Van Vliet, Chief, Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice, Philip _________ ______
Urofsky, Trial Attorney, Criminal Division Department of Justice, on _______
brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Defendant Santiago Panzardi-Lespier ___________
appeals from the district court judgment and sentence entered
on a jury verdict finding him guilty of conspiring to
distribute more than 1000 pounds of marijuana in violation of
21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 846 and possessing less than 1000
pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of
21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. 2. We briefly address
the two major points defendant raises on appeal.
1. We need not resolve defendant's argument that the
district court erred in not dismissing the indictment because
no evidence linking defendant to the alleged offense was
presented to the grand jury. Defendant waived that objection
to the indictment by not raising it before the trial. United ______
States v. Mack, 892 F.2d 134, 135-136 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. ______ ____ _____
denied, 498 U.S. 859 (1990); Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b). ______
Defendant has offered no explanation for his failure to
comply with Rule 12, and he has made no showing of cause for
relief from the waiver. Further, in ruling on defendant's
2255 petition, the district court specifically rejected his
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to
object to the indictment, and defendant has not appealed from
that ruling. Accordingly we will not consider his late
challenge to the indictment.
2. Defendant also argues that he was substantially
prejudiced by spillover evidence from the other counts and
-2- 2
defendants and that the district court erred in denying
severance of counts and defendants. We also need not resolve
that argument because defendant waived this objection by
failing to raise it before trial.
Requests for severance of counts or defendants under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 must be raised prior to
trial. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(5); United States v. McLaughlin, _____________ __________
957 F.2d 12, 18 (1st Cir. 1992).
Defendant first raised his claim for severance in the
2255 petition filed five years after trial. Accordingly, we
will not consider it now.
Affirmed. Loc.R. 27.1. ________
-3- 3