United States v. Twomey ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion











    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    ____________________


    No. 96-1079


    UNITED STATES,

    Appellee,

    v.

    BARRY TWOMEY,

    Defendant, Appellant.

    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


    [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________
    Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
    and Lynch, Circuit Judge. _____________

    ____________________

    Diana L. Maldonado on brief for appellant. __________________
    Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Jeanne M. __________________ __________
    Kempthorne, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. __________


    ____________________

    October 14, 1997
    ____________________
















    Per Curiam. Defendant-appellant Barry Twomey pled ___________

    guilty to two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18

    U.S.C. 2113(a). In sentencing him, the district court

    awarded a two-level reduction in his base offense level for

    his acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G.

    3E1.1(a). The sole issue on appeal is whether the district

    court committed clear error in denying an additional one-

    level reduction under 3E1.1(b).

    "A defendant bears the burden of proving entitlement to

    decreases in the offense level, including downward

    adjustments for acceptance of responsibility. Once the

    sentencing court has ruled against him on such an issue, the

    defendant faces an uphill battle. . . .The clearly erroneous

    standard . . . guides appellate review of district court

    determinations under section 3E1.1(b)." United States v. _____________

    Morillo, 8 F.3d 864, 871 (1st Cir. 1993). _______

    In denying the additional one-level reduction under

    3E1.1(b), the court ruled that the timing of appellant's

    expression of his intent to plead guilty had not permitted

    the government to avoid preparing for trial. Specifically,

    the district court found that when appellant indicated his

    intention to plead guilty, ten days before the second

    scheduled trial date, the government had already made

    substantial submissions and prepared its witnesses. Neither

    that finding nor the court's determination on that basis that



    -2-













    appellant did not qualify for the additional one-level

    reduction was clearly erroneous.

    Appellant's sentence is summarily affirmed. See Loc. R. ________ ___

    27.1.













































    -3-






Document Info

Docket Number: 96-1079

Filed Date: 10/16/1997

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015