Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Carlos RAFAEL, Defendant, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-21
Citations: 155 F. App'x 6
Docket Number: No. 05-1447
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Carlos RAFAEL, Defendant, Appellant.
Judges: Before LIPEZ, Circuit Judge, COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge, and CARTER, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 6–6

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Carlos RAFAEL, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 05-1447.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Nov. 21, 2005.
John A. Markey, Jr., and Moses Smith and Markey, LLC, on brief for appellant.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, and Peter G. Myer, Trial Attorney, on brief for appellee.
Before LIPEZ, Circuit Judge, COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge, and CARTER, Senior District Judge.
Of the District of Maine, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After careful review of the record and consideration of the relevant legal principles, we have concluded that we are in agreement with the magistrate judge's thoughtful and thorough assessment of the facts and law. See United States v. Rafael, 349 F.Supp.2d 84 (D.Mass.2004). "[W]hen a trial court accurately sizes up a case, applies the law faultlessly to the discerned facts, decides the matter, and articulates a convincing rationale for the decision, there is no need for a reviewing court to wax longiloquent." Vargas-Ruiz v. Golden Arch Dev., Inc., 368 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir.2004); see also Connolly v. H.D. Goodall Hosp., Inc., 427 F.3d 127, 127-28 (1st Cir.2005). We therefore affirm without further discussion.
Affirmed.