United States v. Robertson ( 1999 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 98-2130 UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. JERRY LEE ROBERTSON,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.