Court Opinion

ID: 2963599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:12:49.775678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:43.792290
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          August 25, 1995       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

          No. 94-2140

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                        DALE CARLOW, a/k/a WILLIAM R. HARMON,
                                  a/k/a BILL HARMON,

                                Defendant - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                                Stahl, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                           and Dom nguez,* District Judge.
                                           ______________

                                _____________________

               Paul  A.   Dinsmore,  by  Appointment  of   the  Court,  for
               ___________________
          appellant.
               Margaret D.  McGaughey,  Assistant United  States  Attorney,
               ______________________
          with  whom Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and James L.
                     ________________                              ________
          McCarthy,  Assistant United  States Attorney,  were on  brief for
          ________
          appellee.

                                 ____________________

                              
          ____________________

          *  Of the District of Puerto Rico, sitting by designation.

                                 ____________________

                                         -3-

                    Per   Curiam.    Defendant-appellant  Dale  Carlow  was
                    Per   Curiam
                    ____________

          convicted after  a jury found him guilty of 54 counts of mail and

          wire  fraud.  Carlow now  appeals  his  conviction and  sentence.

          Because we discern no error, we affirm.

                    For three months in 1990, Carlow used  the name William

          Harmon in  29 wire transmissions  to buy computer  equipment from

          suppliers  all  over  the United  States  for  a retail  computer

          company in  Maine.  Carlow ordered  increasingly large quantities

          of  equipment and  paid by  company checks  that bounced.   After

          Carlow  was arrested on November  30, 1990, he  opened a computer

          company called Electrobyte.  Through this company, Carlow engaged

          in a  similar pattern of  fraudulent mail and  wire transactions.

          Carlow was arrested once again in September 1991.

                    At  his trial, Carlow's  theory of defense  was that he

          lacked  the requisite intent to  defraud, and his  main source of

          evidence  in  support of  this  argument was  his  own testimony.

          Closing arguments focused,  not surprisingly, on the  credibility

          of Carlow's testimony.  After  deliberating for over three hours,

          the  jury found  Carlow  guilty on  all 54  counts.   Carlow  was

          sentenced on October 19, 1994 to 51 months' imprisonment, and was

          ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $111,649.65.

                    Carlow now  offers several  arguments to  challenge his

          conviction and  sentence, contending: 1) that  the district court

          improperly   calculated  his   sentence   under  the   Sentencing

          Guidelines; 2) that the court erred in ordering restitution in an

          amount greater than $50,000;  3) that the court erred  in finding

                                         -2-

          that Carlow's  conduct involved  more than minimal  planning, and

          for failing to  decrease his  sentence based on  his role in  the

          offense; that the court  erred in instructing the jury  at trial;

          5)  that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to sustain

          his  conviction;   and  6)  that   Carlow  received   ineffective

          assistance of counsel at trial.

                    Having  carefully  reviewed  the entire  record  of the

          trial  and sentencing, we find  no discernible error  or abuse of

          discretion  by  the  district  court.1   Accordingly,  we  reject

          Carlow's contentions on appeal, and affirm.
                                              ______

                              
          ____________________

          1   Because we  ordinarily refrain from  entertaining ineffective
          assistance of counsel claims  on direct review, United  States v.
                                                          ______________
          Mala, 7  F.3d 1058, 1063 (1st Cir. 1993), and we see no reason to
          ____
          depart  from  this   rule  here,  we  do  not   address  Carlow's
          ineffective assistance argument here.

                                         -3-