Court Opinion

ID: 2963719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:14.785341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:45.936020
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 19, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                             

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1258 

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                               RAMON HERNANDEZ COPLIN,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Benicio  Sanchez   Rivera,  Federal  Public  Defender,  and  Laura
            _________________________                                    _____
        Maldonado Rodriguez,  Assistant Federal Public Defender,  on brief for
        ___________________
        appellant.
            Guillermo  Gil,  United States  Attorney,  Edwin  O.  Vazquez  and
            ______________                             __________________
        Nelson  Perez-Sosa, Assistant  United States  Attorneys, on  brief for
        __________________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per   Curiam.    We  reject  appellant's  arguments
                      ____________

            essentially  for the  reasons explained  in United  States v.
                                                        ______________

            Garafano,  61 F.3d 113, 116-17 (1st Cir. 1995).  In remanding
            ________

            for "resentencing on the premise that the point of  departure

            is  a  combined  offense  level  of  13,"  United  States  v.
                                                       ______________

            Hernandez-Coplin, 24 F.3d 312,  320 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,
            ________________                                ____________

            115 S. Ct.  378 (1994),  we permitted the  district court  to

            forego holding a new sentencing  hearing, for we stated  that

            "[r]esentencing  in  this  instance  requires  no  additional

            evidence  and is only a small administrative burden."  Id. at
                                                                   ___

            320.    We see  no  unfairness  or  violation of  appellant's

            constitutional rights in our approach.   Appellant had a full

            opportunity to present mitigating evidence and arguments when

            he  was initially  sentenced.   The technical  nature of  our

            remand did not change the nature of the  information relevant

            to  sentencing  or  warrant  affording  defendant   a  second

            opportunity to repeat, or enlarge  upon, what he had  earlier

            presented.

                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________

                                         -2-