
USCA1 Opinion

	




          September 8, 1994                              [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 93-1894                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                     ALLI HAMMED,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                          __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Ali Hammed on brief pro se.            __________            Arthur R. Silen on brief for petitioner.            _______________            Edwin  J. Gale,  United States  Attorney, Margaret  E.  Curran and            ______________                            ____________________        Zechariah  Chafee, Assistant  United  States Attorneys,  on brief  for        _________________        appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  We have fully  reviewed the record and                      __________            briefs, including defendant's pro  se briefs and motions, and            conclude  the appeal  is meritless,  largely for  the reasons            stated in  the government's briefs.  To  the extent defendant            is contending that counsel was ineffective in failing to move            to dismiss the indictment because of governmental perjury, we            find  no  ineffective  assistance  of  counsel.    The  facts            defendant describes do not  rise to the level of  perjury and            do  not  warrant dismissal  of the  indictment.   As  for the            remainder  of defendant's  ineffective assistance  of counsel            claims,  we do not reach them because they are dependent upon            factual  assertions outside  the  record.   United States  v.                                                        _________________            Mala,  7 F.3d 1058, 1063  (1st Cir. 1993),  cert. denied, 114            ____                                        ____________            S.Ct. 1839 (1994).  All of defendant's motions, including his            request for transcripts,  to correct the presentence  report,            and to hold the prosecutor and Agent Botelho in contempt, are            denied.                 Affirmed.                 ________
