United States v. Robertson ( 1999 )

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       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]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.