Court Opinion

ID: 2965103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:35:28.142766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:05.299328
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [Not for Publication]
                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1079

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 RODERICK L. SENIOR,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Stahl, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Richard H. Gens for appellant.
            _______________
            Roderick L. Senior on brief pro se.
            __________________
            Kimberly S.  Budd, Assistant  United  States  Attorney, with  whom
            _________________
        Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.
        _______________
                                 ____________________

                                  December 30, 1997
                                 ____________________
                      Per Curiam.  Defendant-appellant Roderick L. Senior
                      Per Curiam
                      __________

            pled guilty  to being  a deported alien  found in  the United

            States without the consent of the Attorney  General, 8 U.S.C.

              1326,  and was  sentenced to 51  months' imprisonment,  the

            guidelines  minimum.  He  appeals his sentence,  arguing that

            (1)  he  is entitled  to  a sentence  reduction,  pursuant to

            U.S.S.G.    5G1.3(b), for time  served on a  prior conviction

            taken into account  in determining his  guidelines sentencing

            range; (2) he is entitled to a sentence reduction because the

            district  court improperly  applied  U.S.S.G.    4A1.1(d)  in

            calculating  his criminal  history category;  and  (3) he  is

            entitled  to a downward  departure for agreeing  to immediate

            deportation.1    We  reject these  arguments  and  affirm his

            sentence.

                                          I.
                                          I.
                                          __

                      Senior, a  native and  citizen of Jamaica,  entered

            the United States at Miami  in 1983 using a counterfeit birth

            certificate.     In   1989,  he   pled   guilty  in   Suffolk

            (Massachusetts) Superior Court  to possession with intent  to

            distribute   cocaine,  and   received  a   five-to-seven-year

                                
            ____________________

            1.    Senior also argues that the district  court erroneously
            precluded his attack,  at his sentencing hearing, on  a prior
            state conviction.  At oral argument, however, Senior conceded
            that Custis v. United States,  511 U.S. 485 (1994) forecloses
                 ______    _____________
            this argument.   See United  States v. Cordero, 42  F.3d 697,
                             ___ ______________    _______
            701 (1st Cir. 1994)(applying Custis to  guidelines sentencing
                                         ______
            hearings).
                 Senior also raises, in his  pro se supplemental brief, a
                                             ___ __
            concern  that  his  presentence   report  misstated  a  prior
            offense,  and  that  this  error  may  adversely  affect  his
            treatment  while incarcerated.   We resolved this  concern at
            oral  argument by eliciting the government's pledge to attach
            a letter  of correction to  Senior's Bureau of  Prisons file.
            The government has followed through on its promise.

                                         -3-
                                          3

            sentence.   In December 1991, Massachusetts paroled Senior to

            the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  (INS),  which

            identified  him as  a deportable  aggravated  felon and,  the

            following  month, deported him  to Jamaica.   Deportation did

            not change his parole status, which was scheduled to continue

            until November 28, 1994.

                      In April  1992, Senior reentered the  United States

            without the  consent of  the Attorney  General.   In  October

            1992, he pled guilty to menacing in New York state court, and

            he  subsequently failed  to  appear  for  sentencing.    This

            episode  defaulted  Senior's   Massachusetts  parole  status.

            Consequently,  in  December  1992,  the Massachusetts  Parole

            Board issued  a warrant for  his arrest.  Nearly  three years

            later, in  September 1995, he  was found and arrested  in New

            York,  returned to Massachusetts  on his parole  warrant, and

            incarcerated in Massachusetts' MCI Gardener prison because of

            the parole violation.

                      On  March  15, 1996,  Massachusetts  again released

            Senior to  the INS.  He  remained in INS custody  until April

            1996,  when the  indictment in  this case  was returned.   It

            charged  Senior  with being  a  deported alien  found  in the

            United States -- at MCI Gardener on March 15, 1996 -- without

            the consent of the Attorney General.  Following return of the

            indictment,  the district court ordered Senior detained.  His

                                         -4-
                                          4

            detention continued until his sentencing, which took place in

            November 1996.

                                         II.
                                         II.
                                         ___

            A.  Sentence Reduction Under U.S.S.G.   5G1.32
            _____________________________________________

                      Senior  contends  that,  pursuant  to  U.S.S.G.    

            5G1.3(b), the district court should have reduced his sentence

            to account for  time served in Massachusetts prison beginning

            September 28, 1995.  He observes that application note two of

            U.S.S.G.   5G1.3(b) requires  courts to reduce a  sentence by

            the  period of  imprisonment already  served  as a  result of

            conduct  taken into  account  in the  sentence.   He  further

            asserts that his  case fits within  this proviso because  his

            time served  since September 28,  1995 resulted from  a state

            conviction  that the district court used  to enhance his base

            offense level from 8 to 24.

                      At the outset, Senior faces an uphill climb because

            this argument  is raised for  the first time  on appeal.   We

            therefore review only for plain  error.  See United States v.
                                                     ___ _____________

            Taylor, 54 F.3d 967, 972 (1st Cir. 1995).  We may  find plain
            ______

            error only if  the error "skewed the  fundamental fairness or

            basic  integrity  of  the  proceeding  below  in  some  major

            respect."  Id. at 973.  And we may correct such an error only
                       ___

            if "a  miscarriage of justice  would otherwise result."   Id.
                                                                      ___

                                
            ____________________

            2.   All references are to the 1995 version of the sentencing
            guidelines, which indisputably apply here.

                                         -5-
                                          5

            (citing  United  States v.  Frady,  456  U.S.  152, 163  n.14
                     ______________     _____

            (1982)).

                      Senior's   argument   overlooks   the   fact   that

            application note 2 of U.S.S.G   5G1.3(b) is triggered only by

            a district  court determination  that the  Bureau of  Prisons

            will  not credit a federal  sentence with time already served

            for  conduct taken into account in determining the guidelines

            range.   See U.S.S.G.    5G1.3, comment.  (n. 2).   Here, the
                     ___

            presentence  report indicates that the Bureau of Prisons will

            reduce Senior's  sentence for  his time  served beginning  on

            September  28, 1995.   The  district  court, by  implication,

            adopted this  conclusion, and  Senior does  not contest  it.3

            Rather, Senior does not allege  that his time served will not

            properly  be credited  by  the Bureau  of Prisons;  he merely

            seeks,  by  another means,  what  he is  already  destined to

            receive.  Thus, we find no error, let alone plain error.

            B.  Alleged Error in Applying U.S.S.G.   4A1.1(d)
            _________________________________________________

                      Senior contends, in his pro se supplemental  brief,
                                              ___ __

            that  the  district  court  should  not  have  increased  his

            criminal  history category  by two  points  under U.S.S.G.   

            4A1.1(d) because he was not under a criminal justice sentence

                                
            ____________________

            3.    Indeed, Senior recognized in his brief: "Although there
            is some indication  in the record that the  Bureau of Prisons
            would deal with  the matter of  the credit to  be awarded  to
            defendant, the defendant was entitled by the clear mandate of
            the   guideline  and  commentary  to  the  reduction  of  his
            sentence."  Id.
                        ___

                                         -6-
                                          6

            at the time of the instant offense.  Questions such as  this,

            which involve the  applicability of  a sentencing  guideline,

            are  reviewed by this  court de novo.   See  United States v.
                                         __ ____    ___  _____________

            Ruiz, 105 F.3d 1492, 1504 (1st Cir. 1997).  
            ____

                      Senior correctly  states that  U.S.S.G.    4A1.1(d)

            applies only  if the  instant offense  occurred while he  was

            under a criminal justice sentence.   He then argues that this

            guideline does  not apply because the execution of his arrest

            warrant in 1995  occurred after the scheduled  discharge date

            of his parole.  Therefore, in his view, two points should not

            have been added to his criminal history category.

                      Senior  mistakenly  perceives  his  arrest  on  the

            Massachusetts  warrant as the relevant offense.  The relevant

            offense, i.e., the  one for which he was  sentenced, is being

            illegally in this country without the consent of the Attorney

            General, 8 U.S.C.   1326.   Senior's argument thus rests on a

            faulty premise.  

                      At any  rate, whether  we look to  the date  of his

            unlawful reentry (in  April 1992) or of his  apprehension (on

            March 15, 1996), Senior was under a criminal justice sentence

            at either time.  It seems obvious that, in April 1992, Senior

            was  still on  parole for  his 1989  possession offense,  and

            that, on March 15, 1996, Senior was still imprisoned for that

                                         -7-
                                          7

            parole  violation.4   Accordingly, we  find  no error  in the

            district court's application of U.S.S.G.   4A1.1(d).

            C.  Downward Departure for Agreeing to be Deported
            __________________________________________________

                      Lastly,  Senior argues  that  the district  court's

            decision  not to grant a downward  departure for his agreeing

            to be deported  is reviewable because it was  not an exercise

            of discretion but a ruling based on  a mistaken understanding

            of  the law.   Senior  further asserts  that, because  of its

            mistaken  understanding that it  could not depart,  the court

            did not consider the facts or merits of his request.

                      A district  court's discretionary  decision not  to

            depart  below   the  guideline   sentencing   range  is   not

            reviewable,  except where  there is  a mistake  of law.   See
                                                                      ___

            United States v. Pierro, 32 F.3d 611, 619 (1st Cir. 1994).
            _____________    ______

                      We need not  decide whether the district  court had

            the authority to grant the requested downward departure.  The

            district  court made  it  clear  that it  would  not grant  a

            downward departure even if it could.  Clearly, this statement

            belies  Senior's contention that  the court did  not consider

            the   merits  of  his  argument  for  a  downward  departure.

            Moreover,  it renders utterly  harmless any mistaken  view of

                                
            ____________________

            4.   We  look to  both the date  of reentry  and the  date of
            apprehension  because the  indictment did  not charge  Senior
            with  unlawful reentry; it only charged  him with being found
            in  the  United  States, without  consent  from  the Attorney
            General, following  arrest and  deportation.  Because  Senior
            was under a criminal justice  sentence on both dates, we need
            not decide which is applicable.

                                         -8-
                                          8

            the  law harbored by  the court.   Therefore, even if  we had

            jurisdiction to entertain this argument, we would reject it.

                      Affirmed.
                      Affirmed
                      ________

                                         -9-
                                          9