Correct the paragraphs presented in part A and part B. Use the proofreading checklist presented in Exhibit 14-4.
Part A
The governments' first witness at Bean's sentencing were the DEA Task Force Officer Tony Silva. He testifies that in his debriefing Luiz had told him about four seperate marijuana "grows" in which Luiz had participated. The first was in 1986 In Tress, Texas: this "grow" produced 700 marijuana plants. The second was in 1987 in the Tonto wilderness; and it produced approximatly 1500 marijuana plants. The third "grow" was in 1988 in Sies Colorado and they produced approximately 900 marijuana plants.
The final "grow" was in 1991, also at the Sies site.
Before the plants in this grow had been harveted, a Colorado State Police aircraft was spotted doing a "flyover" of the property. This prompted Luiz to completely destroy the crop, only fifty two plants were seized. As they were seized the officers noted that two or three plants were in a single grow site. Approximately 1,000 "grow holes," with sprinkler heads connected to an extensive irritation system, were found another one thousand uninstalled sprinkler heads, two water tanks and fertilizer also was found on the property.
Part B
The trial court sentenced Smith well within the statutory limits. Therefore the sentence is legal.
The record thoroughly, clearly and positively shows that Smith and his attorney have ample time to thoroughly review Smiths' sentence report prior to sentencing. They did so and had: "no problems with it." It is shown by the record that Smith never appealed his conviction or sentence. His section 2255 Motion were his first and only attempt to challenge his sentence. Any objections to the sentence report as submitted were clearly waived by Smith. The defendant have the responsibility to advise the Court of any claimed errors in the sentence report. His failure to voice any objections waive any issue not properly presented. It has been long held by this court that "Section 2255 is not available to test the legality of matters which should have been raised on appeal." Unless good cause can be shown why a defendant did not appeal or raise a particular issue on appeal; the defendant is barred from raising that issue in a section 2255 Motion.