
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          November 3, 1992      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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.     On  this  consolidated appeal,  we                      ___________            summarily  affirm the district  court's denial of appellant's            "Motion for  Stay of Judgment" as  moot.  We also  affirm the            district court's  denial of  appellant's  "Motion to  Correct            Judgment and  Commitment Order Restitution on  Count Three of            the Indictment,"  which was improperly brought  under Fed. R.            Crim.  P. 35(a).  This affirmance is without prejudice to any            rights appellant  may  have to  pursue  a petition  under  28            U.S.C.    2255,  should she  contend that relief  is properly            available to her under that statute.                  So ordered.                  __________                                         -2-
