Court Opinion

ID: 2964007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:18:56.267447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:49.312652
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          March 25, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1050

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                     HILDA BROWN,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Juan  E. Alvarez,  First  Assistant Federal  Public  Defender  for
            ________________
        Benicio Sanchez  Rivera, Federal Public  Defender for the  District of
        Puerto Rico, and Gustavo A. Gelpi,  Assistant Federal Public Defender,
                         ________________
        on brief for appellant.
            Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney, Esther  Castro-Schmidt,
            ______________                             ______________________
        Assistant United States Attorney,  and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
                                               _______________________
        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   Defendant-appellant  Hilda  M. Brown
                      ___________

            appeals from her  sentence on three grounds, all  arising out

            of her unsuccessful motion for  a downward departure from the

            guideline   sentencing   range   for   extraordinary   family

            circumstances.   We have  jurisdiction to review  appellant's

            claims  that  the  district court's  departure  decision  was

            affected by mistakes of law. See United States v. Webster, 54
                                         ___ _____________    _______

            F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1995).  We affirm.  

                 1. Fifth Amendment Violation
                    _________________________

                 The Fifth  Amendment "has long been  interpreted to mean

            that a defendant may refuse to 'answer official questions put

            to him in any  other proceding, civil or criminal,  formal or

            informal, where  the answers might incriminate  him in future

            criminal  proceedings.'" United  States v.  Perez-Franco, 873
                                     ______________     ____________

            F.2d  455, 462 (1st Cir. 1989)  (quoting Lefkowitz v. Turley,
                                                     _________    ______

            414  U.S. 70 (1973)).   The Supreme Court, while interpreting

            the privilege broadly, has ruled that it "must be confined to

            instances where the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend

            danger from a direct  answer." Hoffman v. United  States, 341
                                           _______    ______________

            U.S. 479, 486 (1951).  

                 Appellant  has  failed  to demonstrate,  and  we  cannot

            conceive,  how any testimony that she might have given at the

            downward departure  hearing  could have  been  incriminating.

            Therefore, her decision not to testify at the  hearing cannot

            properly  be construed as an  exercise of her Fifth Amendment

                                         -2-

            privilege  against  self-incrimination.     Accordingly,  the

            district court's  consideration of her failure  to testify in

            denying the departure did not violate the Fifth Amendment.

                 2. Credibility Assessment
                    ______________________

                 Appellant's second argument is that the sentencing court

            impermissibly relied upon  appellant's "criminal character in

            the underlying offense of  conviction" in concluding that she

            had   fabricated  her  allegation   of  extraordinary  family

            circumstances.  Appellant is referring here to the sentencing

            court's statement that "[t]he nature of the offense committed

            by her points to her skills at deception."  

                 Appellant's reliance upon United  States v. O'Brien,  18
                                           ______________    _______

            F.3d 301 (5th Cir.), cert.  denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115  S. Ct.
                                 _____________

            199  (1994),  is  misplaced.     In  the  instant  case,  the

            sentencing court did not base its departure decision  upon an

            assessment  of appellant's worth or rehabilitative potential,

            see  id.    Instead,  the  district  court's  comment  merely
            ___  ___

            indicated that  it considered the nature  of Brown's criminal

            conduct in assessing  her credibility.   There was no  error.

            Cf. United States  v. O'Neil,  936 F.2d 599  (1st Cir.  1991)
            ___ _____________     ______

            (affirming  sentencing  court's  refusal to  award  two-level

            credit for acceptance of responsibility  and finding "nothing

            unlawful  about  a court's  looking  to  a defendant's  later

            conduct  in  order  to  help  the  court  decide whether  the

            defendant is truly sorry for the crimes he is charged with").

                                         -3-

                 Even  if the  district  court erred  in considering  the

            nature  of  Brown's  offense,  any error  was  harmless.  See
                                                                      ___

            Williams v.  United States, 503  U.S. 193 (1992)  (remand not
            ________     _____________

            required  for incorrect  application of the  guidelines where

            reviewing court determines that  the same sentence would have

            been  imposed had  the  district court  not  relied upon  the

            invalid factor).  The deceptive nature of Brown's offense was

            only  one of several  factors upon  which the  district court

            relied  in deciding not  to depart.  It  is apparent from the

            record that the district court would  have denied the request

            for  a departure even  absent consideration of  the nature of

            her offense.

                 3. Refusal to Authorize Funds
                    __________________________

                 Brown's  final argument  is  that  the district  court's

            denial without a  hearing of  her request under  18 U.S.C.   

            3006(A)(e)(1), constitutes reversible error.  A      district

            court's refusal to authorize  funds for an expert constitutes

            reversible error  only where there is  "'clear and convincing

            evidence showing prejudice to the accused.'" United States v.
                                                         _____________

            Canessa,  644 F.2d 61,  64 (1st  Cir. 1981).   In  this case,
            _______

            Brown was able to hire an expert despite the district court's

            denial of her request for funds.   We conclude that Brown has

            not shown  by "clear  and convincing evidence"  any prejudice

            arising from the denial of her request for funds.

                                         -4-

                 Accordingly,  appellant's  conviction  and sentence  are

            summarily affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
            __________________

                                         -5-