Case ID: f-appx_421/html/0004-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Patrick McKEEN, Defendant, Appellant.
    No. 10-1747.
    United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
    May 11, 2011.
    Mark E. Howard and Howard & Ruoff, PLLC on brief, for appellant.
    Seth R. Aframe, Assistant United States Attorney, and Michael J. Gunnison, Attorney (acting under authority conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515), on brief, for appellee.
    Before TORRUELLA, SELYA and LIPEZ, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

This is a single-issue sentencing appeal. Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the district court could support-ably find — as it did — that the prosecutor’s decision not to move for an additional reduction in the defendant’s offense level for timely acceptance of responsibility, see USSG § 3El.l(b), was neither irrational nor motivated by an unconstitutional reason. The decision was, therefore, within the prosecutor’s wide discretion, see, e.g., United States v. Beatty, 538 F.3d 8, 15 (1st Cir.2008), and the district court did not err in refusing to compel the prosecutor to make such a motion.

We need go no further. On this basis, we summarily affirm the defendant’s sentence. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

Affirmed.