Court Opinion

ID: 2964923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:02.735298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:02.695952
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1369

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 JOSE A. OTERO-ORTIZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Joseph  C. Laws,  Jr., Federal  Public Defender,  and Miguel  A.A.
            _____________________                                 ____________
        Nogueras-Castro,  Assistant Federal  Public  Defender,  on  brief  for
        _______________
        appellant.
            Guillermo   Gil,  United   States  Attorney,   Nelson  Perez-Sosa,
            _______________                                __________________
        Assistant  United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
                                               _______________________
        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  Octoberf 24, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.    After pleading  guilty,  appellant  Jose
                 ___________

            Otero- Ortiz was  convicted of drug offenses  in violation of

            21  U.S.C.    841, 846, and 18  U.S.C.   2.  He was sentenced

            to 10-years' imprisonment, the mandatory minimum required  by

            21  U.S.C.    841(b)(1)(A),  and  five  years  of  supervised

            release.  Appellant has AIDS.  His sole argument on appeal is

            that the  district court  erred by declining  to grant  him a

            downward departure   because he  has AIDS due to  the court's

            mistaken assumption that  health cannot form  the basis of  a

            departure.   Because  appellant never  requested  a  downward

            departure  below, this  issue has  been waived.   See,  e.g.,
                                                              ___   ____

            United States  v. Catucci,  55 F.3d 15,  18 (1st  Cir. 1995);
            _____________     _______

            United States v. Field, 39 F.3d 15, 21 (1st Cir. 1994).  Even
            _____________    _____

            if  that  were not  so,  the  contention  is meritless.    No

            authority  exists for  a sentencing  court to  depart  from a

            statutory  minimum  based merely  on  the  defendant's health

            condition.   United States v.  Rounsavall, 115 F.3d  561, 566
                         _____________     __________

            (8th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___, 1997 WESTLAW 562074
                        _____ ______

            (U.S.,  Oct.  6,  1997).    There  was  no  evidence  of  any

            extraordinary physical  impairment.  See, e.g., United States
                                                 ___  ____  _____________

            v. Rabins,  63 F.3d 721,  728 (8th Cir. 1995),  cert. denied,
               ______                                       _____ ______

            116 S. Ct.  1031 (1996).  Thus,  even if appellant had  asked

            and  qualified for a downward departure  based on his health,

            the  district court  was still  bound to  impose  the 10-year

            mandatory minimum.   Accordingly, the  judgment of conviction

                                         -2-

            is affirmed.
               ________

                                         -3-