
USCA1 Opinion

	




          September 3, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1237                               DANIEL JOSEPH MARAVILLA,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Daniel Joseph Maravilla on brief pro se.            _______________________            Deval  L. Patrick,  Assistant Attorney  General, David  K.  Flynn,            _________________                                ________________        Attorney,  Department of  Justice, and  Marie K.  McElderry, Attorney,                                                ___________________        Department of Justice, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  Daniel  Joseph Maravilla appeals the denial                 __________            of  his motion filed pursuant to  28 U.S.C.   2255.  Although            he raised numerous issues in that motion, he has confined his            appeal to his claim that the government's failure to disclose            two FBI-302  reports violated  its obligation under  Brady v.                                                                 _____            Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and  its progeny.  We deem  the            ________            remaining issues raised in the   2255 motion waived.                 We have  carefully reviewed the parties'  briefs and the            record   on  appeal  as  to  the  Brady  issue.    We  affirm                                              _____            essentially for  the reasons  stated in the  district court's            opinion.   Maravilla v. United States, 901 F. Supp. 62, 64-66                       _________    _____________            (D.P.R. 1995).  We add only the following.                 Contrary to  Maravilla's contention, the  district court            neither  applied  the wrong  legal  standard  nor abused  its            discretion in its ruling.  And, insofar as Maravilla suggests            that  an erroneous application of law  or abuse of discretion            is  grounds   for  sua  sponte  recusal,   he  is  incorrect.            Contentions  that  the district  court  erred  or abused  its            discretion in  its ruling are routine grounds for appeal, not            recusal.  See Liteky  v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157                      ___ ______     _____________            (1994).                 Affirmed.                 _________                                         -3-
