Opinion ID: 195159
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: other objections to the sentence

Text: 13 Martnez claims that the sentencing judge erred by relying upon information outside his own PSR to determine whether he was a leader and organizer. During sentencing, the judge did, in fact, explicitly base his findings partly upon information contained in the PSR's of Martnez' codefendants, Morales and Ituribides. Martnez' counsel, however, failed to voice any objections to this at the hearing. Consequently, the issue has not been preserved for appeal unless there are some unusually compelling circumstances. United States v. Ocasio-Rivera, 991 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993). This exception mainly applies where a correction of the alleged error would ensure the defendant's success and thus prevent a miscarriage of justice. Id. Martnez fails to point out any circumstances, compelling or otherwise, that would be sufficient to overcome his procedural default. Given the sufficiency of the evidence in Martnez' own PSR and given that the judge, in making a role in the offense determination for Martnez, had to take into consideration the relative roles of all the codefendants anyway, 4 we are convinced that no miscarriage of justice has occurred in this case. 14 Martnez also challenges the sentencing judge's decision to grant only a two level, instead of a three level, decrease in his base offense level for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1(b)(2). He concedes, however, that he did not raise this objection during sentencing and that under the 'plain error' rule, he will not succeed on this point alone. As we have decided all other issues against the defendant, according to his own admission, we must decide this one against him as well. 15 Affirmed.