United States v. Robertson ( 1999 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion


           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
    
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit





    No. 98-2130

    UNITED STATES,

    Plaintiff, Appellee,

    v.

    JERRY LEE ROBERTSON,

    Defendant, Appellant.
    ____________________

    No. 99-1460

    UNITED STATES,

    Appellee,

    v.

    JERRY LEE ROBERTSON,

    Defendant, Appellant.




    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]




    Before

    Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
    Circuit Judges.





    William T. Boyle on brief for appellant.
    Jerry Lee Robertson on supplemental brief pro se.
    Margaret E. Curran, United States Attorney, and Stephanie S.
    Browne, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.





    June 24, 1999










































    Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the record and the briefs,
    we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in applying
    an enhancement for obstruction of justice. The guidelines
    themselves, as well as the pre-sentence report, gave ample notice
    that the enhancement might be applied. The district court's
    findings were specific enough, and we have no reason to second-
    guess the district court's negative view of defendant's probity.
    We also have reviewed to the extent possible the arguments
    raised in defendant's supplemental brief. Even were those
    arguments adequately developed and properly before us, we would
    find no merit in any of them. Contrary to defendant's arguments:
    the affidavit sufficiently supported the warrant; the evidence
    sufficiently supported the convictions; and the jury instructions
    sufficiently explained the elements of the offenses and the
    government's burden of proof. Further, defendant's sentence was
    calculated appropriately in light of the conviction for possession
    with intent to distribute heroin within 1000 feet of a school; the
    weapons enhancement was not clearly erroneous in light of the
    circumstances in which the drugs and guns were found; and,
    considering defendant's criminal past along with the outstanding
    warrants, we cannot say that the degree of the departure was
    outside the district court's discretion in such matters.
    The judgment is affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. The
    bail appeal, no. 98-2130, is dismissed as moot.

Document Info

Docket Number: 98-2130

Filed Date: 6/28/1999

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015