
USCA1 Opinion

	




          September 23, 1993                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 93-1167                                    OSCAR ANDIARENA,                                Petitioner, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                Respondent, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]                                          ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Oscar Andiarena on brief pro se.            _______________            Jay P. McCloskey,  United States Attorney, and Michael M.  DuBose,            ________________                               __________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   Oscar Andiarena  was convicted in  1985 of                 __________            conspiracy to  possess cocaine with intent  to distribute, in            violation  of  21  U.S.C.     846.    See  United  States  v.                                                  ___  ______________            Andiarena, 823 F.2d 673 (1st Cir. 1987) (affirming conviction            _________            on direct  appeal).  He thereafter filed  two petitions under            28 U.S.C.    2255 to vacate his conviction, each of which was            denied.   See Andiarena v.  United States, 940  F.2d 646 (1st                      ___ _________     _____________            Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (table) (affirming denial on merits);            Andiarena v. United States, 967 F.2d 715 (1st Cir. 1992) (per            _________    _____________            curiam) (affirming denial as  abuse of writ).  Andiarena  now            appeals  from the  denial of  his third    2255  petition, in            which he alleged that the district court lacked  jurisdiction            over the  underlying criminal offense.   Because the district            court disposed of the instant petition on the merits  (rather            than on abuse of the writ grounds), we shall do likewise.                 Petitioner advances  two arguments in this  regard, both            of which  prove frivolous.   He  first contends that  federal            district   courts  are  without   jurisdiction  to  entertain            prosecutions  brought  under 21  U.S.C.     846 because  that            statutory provision contains  no such grant  of jurisdiction.            This argument  ignores the  fact  that district  courts  have            original jurisdiction over offenses against the United States            under  18  U.S.C.    3231.    Second, petitioner  inventively            suggests that Title 21 was never officially enacted into law.            In support, he notes that Title  21 has yet to be included in            the ongoing effort  to revise and  codify the Code's  various            titles  so as to  make them official  statements (rather than            simply  prima  facie  evidence) of  the  federal  laws.   See                                                                      ___            Preface to U.S.C.  (1982).   This argument  ignores the  fact            that 21 U.S.C.   846 was enacted into law on October 27, 1970            by Pub. L. No.  91-513, Tit. II,    406, 84 Stat. 1265.   For            these reasons,  the district  court was plainly  justified in            denying the petition  on its  face without a  hearing.   See,                                                                     ___            e.g., Shraiar v. United  States, 736 F.2d 817, 818  (1st Cir.            ____  _______    ______________            1984) (per curiam).                  Affirmed.                 _________                                         -3-
