Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Toro-Aristizibal, 1st Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views5 pages
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case from November 3, 1992. It involves Amparo Toro-Aristizabal appealing the district court's denial of her "Motion for Stay of Judgment" and "Motion to Correct Judgment and Commitment Order Restitution on Count Three of the Indictment." The Court of Appeals summarily affirms the district court's denial of both motions. However, the affirmance is without prejudice to Toro-Aristizabal's right to pursue a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255 if she contends relief is available under that statute.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1992-11-03 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 92-1751

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case from November 3, 1992. It involves Amparo Toro-Aristizabal appealing the district court's denial of her "Motion for Stay of Judgment" and "Motion to Correct Judgment and Commitment Order Restitution on Count Three of the Indictment." The Court of Appeals summarily affirms the district court's denial of both motions. However, the affirmance is without prejudice to Toro-Aristizabal's right to pursue a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255 if she contends relief is available under that statute.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    16 views5 pages

    United States v. Toro-Aristizibal, 1st Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a United States Court of Appeals case from November 3, 1992. It involves Amparo Toro-Aristizabal appealing the district court's denial of her "Motion for Stay of Judgment" and "Motion to Correct Judgment and Commitment Order Restitution on Count Three of the Indictment." The Court of Appeals summarily affirms the district court's denial of both motions. However, the affirmance is without prejudice to Toro-Aristizabal's right to pursue a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255 if she contends relief is available under that statute.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 5

    USCA1 Opinion

    November 3, 1992

    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

    ___________________
    Nos. 92-1751
    92-1752

    UNITED STATES,
    Appellee,
    v.
    AMPARO TORO-ARISTIZABAL,
    Defendant, Appellant.
    __________________
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
    [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________
    ___________________
    Before
    Breyer, Chief Judge,

    ___________
    Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges,
    ______________
    ___________________

    Amparo Toro-Aristizabal on brief pro se.


    _______________________
    A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, and Stephen P.
    ___________________
    __________
    Heymann, Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion for Summary
    _______
    Disposition for appellee.

    __________________
    __________________

    Per Curiam.
    ___________
    summarily
    "Motion for

    On

    this

    affirm the district

    denial of

    we

    court's denial of appellant's

    Stay of Judgment" as

    district court's

    consolidated appeal,

    moot.

    appellant's

    We also

    affirm the

    "Motion to

    Correct

    Judgment and

    Commitment Order Restitution on

    Count Three of

    the Indictment,"

    which was improperly brought

    Crim.

    This affirmance is without prejudice to any

    P. 35(a).

    rights appellant
    U.S.C.

    2255,

    may

    have to

    should she

    pursue

    a petition

    contend that relief

    available to her under that statute.


    So ordered.
    __________

    -2-

    under Fed. R.

    under

    28

    is properly

    You might also like