Court Opinion

ID: 2964410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:13.328811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:54.740450
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1526

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  DOUGLAS M. BURKE,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Bjorn Lange, Assistant Federal Defender, on Anders brief.
            ___________                                 ______
            Douglas M. Burke on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney,  and Peter E. Papps, First
            ______________                               ______________
        Assistant United  States Attorney,  on Motion for  Summary Disposition
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   December 2, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.    In  1991, defendant  Douglas  Burke  was
                 ___________

            convicted in  federal  court on  counterfeiting  charges  and

            later sentenced to  28 months  in prison and  three years  of

            supervised release.  In 1995, while on supervised release, he

            was arrested on state fraud charges.  Upon his plea of guilty

            to such charges, the  state court sentenced him to a  term in

            state  prison.   In turn,  after finding  that  defendant had

            thereby violated the  conditions of  his supervised  release,

            the federal  court revoked  his release status  and sentenced

            him to a consecutive,  24-month term in federal prison.   The

            validity of this latter sentence is the sole issue on appeal.

                 Defendant's counsel,  voicing the belief that the appeal

            presents  no  nonfrivolous  issues,  has filed  a  motion  to

            withdraw  accompanied by  an  Anders  brief; the  government,
                                          ______

            espousing the  same view, has moved  for summary disposition.

            Defendant has filed a pro se  brief and an opposition to  the

            government's motion.  

                 We agree that the  appeal is frivolous.  That  defendant

            violated  the conditions  of  his supervised  release is  not

            disputed, and  the sentence imposed was  within the governing

            statutory and guideline ranges.   See 18 U.S.C.   3583(e)(3);
                                              ___

            U.S.S.G.     7B1.4(a).    The  sole  contention  advanced  in

            defendant's pro  se brief--that  the federal court  relied on

            false information--is misplaced.  The record reveals that the

            state court did,  in fact,  base its sentence  partly on  the

                                         -2-

            expectation that further  imprisonment would result from  the

            federal   proceedings.    That   such  expectation   was  not

            memorialized  in the  plea  agreement is  of  no moment;  the

            matter was brought  to the state  court's attention prior  to

            the  imposition of sentence.   And the federal  court was not

            advised (contrary  to defendant's  suggestion) that  the plea

            agreement itself referred to the matter. 

                 In  turn, while we  express no  opinion on  the parties'

            shared assertion  that U.S.S.G.   7B1.3(f), with its call for

            consecutive sentencing,  is binding on the  lower court, see,
                                                                     ___

            e.g.,  United States  v. Throneburg,  87  F.3d 851,  854 (6th
            ____   _____________     __________

            Cir.), cert.  denied, 65 U.S.L.W. 3341  (1996); United States
                   _____________                            _____________

            v.  Caves, 73  F.3d 823,  824 (8th  Cir. 1996)  (per curiam);
                _____

            United States v. Hill,  48 F.3d 228, 230-32 (7th  Cir. 1995);
            _____________    ____

            see also United States v. O'Neil, 11 F.3d 292, 301  n.11 (1st
            ________ _____________    ______

            Cir. 1993);  compare, e.g.,  United States v.  Alexander, ___
                         _______  ____   _____________     _________

            F.3d  ___, 1996 WL 656094 (5th Cir. 1996) (discussing   5G1.3

            n.6); United States  v. Gondek, 65 F.3d 1,  2 (1st Cir. 1995)
                  _____________     ______

            (same), the matter is without significance  here.  The record

            does not suggest that  the district court believed it  had no

            alternative but to impose a consecutive sentence.  See, e.g.,
                                                               ___  ____

            Throneburg, 87 F.3d at 854.  Compare United States v. Sparks,
            __________                   _______ _____________    ______

            19  F.3d  1099, 1100-01  (6th Cir.  1994).   Imposition  of a

            consecutive  sentence  was   obviously  warranted  under  the

            circumstances--particularly given the rationale for the state

                                         -3-

            court  sentence.   And  defendant acknowledged  below that  a

            consecutive sentence was appropriate.  

                 Defense  counsel's   motion  to  withdraw   is  granted,
                 ________________________________________________________

            appellee's motion for summary disposition is granted, and the
            _____________________________________________________________

            judgment is affirmed.
            _____________________

                                         -4-