Court Opinion

ID: 2964621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:28:24.883254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:55.845013
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

        No. 96-1743

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  DAVID ALLAN SMITH,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Donald R. Furman, Jr. for appellant.
             _____________________
             F. Mark Terison,  Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Jay
             _______________                                               ___
        P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and James L. McCarthy, Assistant
        ____________                              _________________
        United States Attorney, were on brief for appellee.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                    March 6, 1997
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                    Per  Curiam.   Defendant-appellant David  Smith appeals
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___  ______

          the sentence imposed  following his conviction under  18 U.S.C.  

          922(g)(1) (felon  in  possession  of  firearm) and  18  U.S.C.   

          924(a)(2) (prescribing ten-year maximum sentence).1  

                    First, Smith  challenges  a two-level  enhancement  for

          obstruction of justice, see  U.S.S.G   3C1.1 (Nov. 1995),  on the
                                  ___

          ground that the district court ruling that he attempted to suborn

          perjury was not supported by the requisite subsidiary findings of

          fact,  but relied  instead  only on  the  facts detailed  in  the

          unchallenged  presentence  report  (PSR).   Quite  the  contrary,

          however, the  district court's explicit adoption  of the findings

          proposed in  the PSR  left no doubt  whatever, either  as to  the

          grounds  relied upon  or their  adequacy.   See United  States v.
                                                      ___ ______________

          Tracy,  36 F.3d 199, 203  (1st Cir. 1994)  (sentencing court need
          _____

          not set  out subsidiary  findings provided its  ultimate findings

          and grounds plainly appear  in record).  Nor were  the statements

          upon  which the district court findings were based susceptible to

          innocent interpretation.   See  United States  v. Clark,  84 F.3d
                                     ___  _____________     _____

          506,  509-10 (1st  Cir.), cert.  denied, 117  S. Ct.  272 (1996).
                                    _____  ______

          Thus,  Smith's competing interpretations did not render ambiguous

          the statement given by  the witness whose testimony he  sought to

          suborn.  See id. at 510.
                   ___ ___

                    Second, Smith challenges the special  condition imposed
                              
          ____________________

               1Although Smith  failed to assert his  claims below, thereby
          implicating "plain  error" review, see United  States v. Sanchez-
                                             ___ ______________    ________
          Barreto, 93 F.3d 17, 24 (1st Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct.
          _______                                  ____  ______
          711 (1997),  we discern no merit even under a de novo standard of
                                                        __ ____
          review.

                                          2

          by  the district court, prohibiting his use of alcohol during the

          three-year term of supervision following his release from prison.

          See  U.S.S.G.    5D1.3(b)  (sentencing judge  may impose  special
          ___

          conditions reasonably  related to nature of  offense and personal

          history  of  defendant).   Smith  contends  that the  prohibition

          against  using alcohol  constituted an  abuse of  discretion, see
                                                                        ___

          United States v. Thurlow, 44 F.3d 46, 47 (1st Cir.) (per curiam),
          _____________    _______

          cert. denied,  115 S.  Ct. 1987  (1995); see  also supra  n.1, as
          _____ ______                             ___  ____ _____

          there was no evidence linking alcohol to the crime of conviction.

          Once again we must disagree.

                    There  was  abundant  justification  for  imposing  the

          special  condition.  See id. (no abuse of discretion in requiring
                               ___ ___

          defendant  to abstain from using  and possessing alcohol in light

          of personal history and continuing alcohol abuse).  Smith conced-

          ed  that he has an "abjectly appalling record of driving vehicles

          while under the  influence of alcohol"  and admitted violating  a

          condition  of his  bail by  consuming alcohol  within twenty-four

          hours before  entering his guilty plea  in this case.   Thus, the

          appropriateness of the special  condition imposed by the district

          court is beyond question.          Affirmed.
                                             Affirmed.
                                             ________

                                          3