United States v. Junquera de Rivera ( 1993 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion









    January 8, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT




    _________________________

    No. 92-2112

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

    Appellee,

    v.

    BEATRIZ JUNQUERA DE RIVERA,

    Defendant, Appellant.

    _________________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

    [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________

    _________________________

    Before

    Torruella, Selya and Stahl,

    Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    _________________________

    J. Hilary Billings for appellant.
    __________________
    Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorney,
    ______________________
    with whom Richard S. Cohen, United States Attorney, and Jay P.
    ________________ ______
    McCloskey, Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief, for
    _________
    the United States.

    _________________________



    _________________________















    Per Curiam. This is a guideline sentencing appeal. We
    __________

    have carefully reviewed the appellant's objections to the

    district court's determination of her offense level and guideline

    sentencing range (which, in turn, led to her sentence). Having

    in mind, particularly, that a criminal defendant must carry the

    burden of proving her entitlement to downward adjustments in the

    presumptively applicable offense level, see, e.g., United States
    ___ ____ _____________

    v. Ocasio, 914 F.2d 330, 332 (1st Cir. 1990), and that a
    ______

    deferential standard of review applies to factbound

    determinations under the sentencing guidelines, see, e.g., United
    ___ ____ ______

    States v. Ruiz, 905 F.2d 499, 508 (1st Cir. 1990) (holding that
    ______ ____

    "where there is more than one plausible view of the

    circumstances, the sentencing court's choice among supportable

    alternatives cannot be clearly erroneous"), we see no sound basis

    for overturning the lower court's findings.

    We need go no further. We have said before that

    "[s]entencing appeals prosecuted . . . in the tenuous hope that

    lightning may strike ought not to be dignified with exegetic

    opinions, intricate factual synthesis, or full-dress explications

    of accepted legal principles." United States v. Ruiz-Garcia, 886
    _____________ ___________

    F.2d 474, 477 (1st Cir. 1989). So it is here.





    The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed are
    The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed are
    _______________________________________________________

    affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
    affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
    _________ ___




    2