Court Opinion

ID: 2964455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:58.493478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:59.101700
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2139

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                WILLY MARROQUIN, a/k/a Willy Adolfo Marroquin Mendez,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                         __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Cyr, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Thomas A. Grasso on brief for appellant.
            ________________
            Sheldon Whitehouse,  United States Attorney,  Margaret E.  Curran,
            __________________                            ___________________
        Assistant  U.S.  Attorney, and  Stephanie  S.  Browne, Assistant  U.S.
                                        _____________________
        Attorney, on  Motion For Summary Disposition and Memorandum In Support
        Of Motion For Summary Dispositon for appellee.
                                 ____________________

                                  December 27, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.    Upon   careful  review  of  the  record,
                 ___________

            defendant's brief, and the government's motion asking that we

            summarily   remand  to   the   district  court   for  further

            proceedings, we agree that oral argument is not necessary and

            that  the  requirements  of  U.S.S.G.    3E1.1(b)  should  be

            reconsidered on remand.

                 Section   3E1.1(b)   provides   an  additional   1-level

            reduction if the defendant qualifies for the initial decrease

            under    3E1.1(a), has  an offense level  of 16  or more, and

            either:

                      (1)  timely provid[es] complete  information to the
                      government  concerning his  own involvement  in the
                      offense;  or (2)  timely notif[ies]  authorities of
                      his intention  to enter  a plea of  guilty, thereby
                      permitting  the government  to avoid  preparing for
                      trial  and permitting  the  court to  allocate  its
                      resources efficiently.

            Once the  reduction under    3E1.1(a) has  been allowed,  the

            only relevant  inquiry is whether the  defendant meets either

            of the criteria of    3E1.1(b).  United States  v. Talladino,
                                             _____________     _________

            38 F.3d 1255, 1266 (1st Cir. 1994).

                 Here,  the  district  court   granted  the      3E1.1(a)

            reduction and made no findings as to the   3E1.1(b) criteria.

            The  government did not object  in the district  court to a  

            3E1.1(b) reduction,  and now the government  states that "The

            record suggests  no obvious  basis for denying  the one-level

            reduction."

                                         -2-

                 In  these  circumstances,   we  conclude   that  it   is

            appropriate  to vacate the  sentence and remand  the cause to

            the district  court for resentencing  after consideration  of

            the    3E1.1(b) criteria.   The district court  may order any

            further proceedings it deems necessary before resentencing.

                 Sentence  vacated and  cause  remanded  to the  district
                 ________________________________________________________

            court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
            ___________________________________________________________

                                         -3-