Court Opinion

ID: 2965041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:29.050822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:08.607462
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1558

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                      RICHARD JOSEPH PICARDI, A/K/A FAT RITCHIE,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            John J. Barter on brief for appellant.
            ______________
            Donald K. Stern, United  States Attorney, and  James C. Rehnquist,
            _______________                                __________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   December 9, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Upon  careful review,  we cannot  conclude
                 __________

            that the district court misunderstood its authority to depart

            under  U.S.S.G.     5H1.4.   The  district  court's comments,

            fairly read, indicate only that the departure was denied as a

            matter of  discretion.  That  exercise of  discretion is  not

            subject  to appellate review.   See United States v. LeBlanc,
                                            ___ _____________    _______

            24 F.3d 340, 348 (1st Cir. 1994).

                 Further, the adjustments under  both U.S.S.G.   3B1.1(b)

            (managerial   role   in   the   offense),  and   U.S.S.G.    

            2B1.1(b)(4)(B)  (business  of  receiving and  selling  stolen

            property) did  not effect an  improper double counting.   See
                                                                      ___

            United States v. Reeves, 83 F.3d 203, 208 (8th Cir. 1996).
            _____________    ______

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -2-