-
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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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