United States v. Sanchez ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion











    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    ____________________


    No. 97-1033


    UNITED STATES,

    Appellee,

    v.

    DAVID RIVERA, A/K/A KENNETH BAKER,
    A/K/A CHRISTOPHER TOLAN,

    Defendant, Appellant.

    ____________________


    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

    [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________
    Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
    and Boudin, Circuit Judge. _____________

    ____________________

    Robert A. Strumwasser on brief for appellant. _____________________
    Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, on brief for ___________________
    appellee.


    ____________________

    December 10, 1997
    ____________________















    Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and __________

    record, we find no reason to overturn defendant's sentence.

    Defendant did not alert the district court to any

    alleged breach of the plea agreement, and so we review

    defendant's appellate allegation for plain error only. No

    plain error appears. Under the written plea agreement, the

    government's obligation not to oppose the decrease for

    acceptance of responsibility was conditional upon whether

    defendant "truthfully admits his involvement in the criminal

    conduct to which he is pleading guilty," and the government

    did not plainly breach that conditional obligation. We

    reject defendant's argument that the plea colloquy made the

    government's obligation unconditional; the change of plea

    transcript, read as a whole, convinces us that the district

    court adequately alerted defendant that his truthfulness

    would be a continuing question at sentencing.

    The district court properly refused the decrease for

    acceptance of responsibility based on its negative assessment

    of defendant's credibility and candor and its interpretation

    of defendant's ambiguous, rationalized, and qualified

    statements purporting to accept responsibility for the

    instant offense. See United States v. Ocasio-Rivera, 991 ___ _____________ _____________

    F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1993). We will not second-guess that

    assessment and interpretation. Contrary to defendant's

    arguments, it does not appear that the district court



    -2-













    considered impermissible factors or engaged in improper

    speculation in that regard. In any event, we agree with the

    district court that defendant's statements did not

    demonstrate a clear acceptance of responsibility.

    Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___











































    -3-






Document Info

Docket Number: 97-1033

Filed Date: 12/10/1997

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015