Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Patrick McKEEN, Defendant, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-11
Citations: 421 F. App'x 4
Docket Number: No. 10-1747
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Patrick McKEEN, Defendant, Appellant.
Judges: Before TORRUELLA, SELYA and LIPEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 4–5

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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 re duction 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.