Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/957/36/1822/
Timestamp: 2020-02-24 08:53:00
Document Index: 630089167

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 31', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 952', '§ 841', '§ 955']

United States, Appellee, v. Bill Ray Mcdowell, Defendant, Appellant, 957 F.2d 36 (1st Cir. 1992) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › First Circuit › 1992 › United States, Appellee, v. Bill Ray Mcdowell, Defendant, Appellant
United States, Appellee, v. Bill Ray Mcdowell, Defendant, Appellant, 957 F.2d 36 (1st Cir. 1992)
US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - 957 F.2d 36 (1st Cir. 1992) Heard Oct. 9, 1991. Decided Feb. 20, 1992
A jury found McDowell guilty on all three counts of an indictment charging him and several others with various drug trafficking crimes.1 The trial judge at the disposition found appellant to have been an "organizer or leader" and increased his base offense level of thirty-four by four levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 31B1.1(a). It then sentenced him near the low end of the applicable range, to a term of imprisonment of 241 months and a fine of $150,000.2 On appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court had not made reasonably specific findings as to one of the elements of § 3B1.1(a), that the criminal activity which defendant organized or led "involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive." United States v. McDowell, 918 F.2d 1004, 1012 (1st Cir. 1990).
All of the claimed errors surfaced initially on appeal. None was brought to the attention of the district court at the time of resentencing, and "[i]t has long been the practice in this circuit that an issue not presented in the district court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal." United States v. Curzi, 867 F.2d 36, 44 (1st Cir. 1989). See United States v. Pacheco-Ortiz, 889 F.2d 301, 307 (1st Cir. 1989).
Even if the defendant had preserved these issues for appeal, they do not warrant reversal. First, we have no jurisdiction to review the appropriateness of the $150,000 fine. It is well within the applicable guideline range, and we have held repeatedly that a sentence within the correct range, which is not otherwise imposed in violation of law, is not appealable. E.g. United States v. Vega-Encarnacion, 914 F.2d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 1990); United States v. Tucker, 892 F.2d 8, 11, (1st Cir. 1989).
Second, defendant's contention that the district court failed to consider his "minimal" role, is belied by the record. The court specifically found defendant to have been the messenger and then determined the total offense level without reduction under § 3B1.2. Defendant concedes that the underlying finding does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that he played a minor, let alone minimal, role. See United States v. Paz Uribe, 891 F.2d 396, 399 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 951, 110 S. Ct. 2216, 109 L. Ed. 2d 542 (1990); see also United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir. 1989) (drug couriers not automatically entitled to downward adjustment under 3B1.2), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 923, 110 S. Ct. 1957, 109 L. Ed. 2d 319 (1990).
Specifically, defendant-appellant was found guilty on charges of aiding and abetting the unlawful importation of cocaine into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a); aiding and abetting the unlawful possession of cocaine with the intention to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1); and aiding and abetting the unlawful possession of cocaine on board an aircraft in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 955