Court Opinion

ID: 2964740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:23.470845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:00.626319
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit

                                 ____________________

          No. 96-2350

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    FRANCIS BOOTS,

                                Defendant - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

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

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                _____________________

               David W. Bate for appellant.
               _____________
               F. Mark Terison, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
               _______________
          Jay  P.  McCloskey,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Margaret  D.
          __________________                                   ____________
          McGaughey, Assistant  United States  Attorney, were on  brief for
          _________
          appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    June 25, 1997
                                 ____________________

                    Per  Curiam.   Francis Boots  ("Boots") was  convicted,
                    Per  Curiam. 
                    ___________

          following  a jury trial, of conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

            371, to commit three offenses:

                      1)  to devise a  scheme or artifice using
                      the  wires  in  interstate commerce  with
                      intent to defraud Canada and the Province
                      of Nova  Scotia of excise duties  and tax
                      revenues,  in  violation  of   18  U.S.C.
                        1343; 2) to devise a scheme or artifice
                      to   deprive   the   residents   of   the
                      Passamaquoddy Reservation in Maine of the
                      honest services of their police chief, in
                      violation of 18 U.S.C.    1343 and  1346;
                      and  3)  to  travel interstate  with  the
                      intent  to  facilitate  bribery, a  crime
                      under Maine state law, in violation of 18
                      U.S.C.   1952.

          United States v.  Boots, 80  F.3d 580, 582-83  (1st Cir.),  cert.
          _____________     _____                                     _____

          denied, 417 S. Ct. 263 (1996) ("Boots I").
          ______                          _______

                    Following conviction by  the district court, Boots  and

          his  co-defendants appealed to this  court.  We  reversed in part

          and  remanded for  resentencing.   Id. at  595.  On  November 22,
                                             ___

          1996,  the  district court  sentenced  Boots  to fourteen  months

          imprisonment.  He now appeals the sentence.

                    Boots first argues that he was entitled  to a two-point

          reduction   in   his   sentencing   level   for   acceptance   of

          responsibility.  This issue was reviewed by this court in Boots I
                                                                    _______

          and,  therefore,  the ruling  in Boots  I  -- which  affirmed the
                                           ________

          district court's denial of a downward departure for acceptance of

          responsibility -- is the law  of the case.  Boots  is, therefore,

          precluded from seeking  review of the issue  unless "the evidence

          on a  subsequent trial  was substantially  different, controlling

          authority has since made a contrary decision of law applicable to

                                         -2-

          such issues, or the decision was clearly erroneous and would work

          an injustice."  Cohen v. Brown Univ., 101 F.3d 155, 168 (1st Cir.
                          _____    ___________

          1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1469 (1997).
                 ____________

                    Boots  alleges that the  district court's  statement on

          remand that  he had been  truthful with  the court was  enough to

          allow  reconsideration of  our  earlier decision.   We  disagree.

          Although it is true  that the district court commented  on Boots'

          truthfulness, this  choice of  words by the  sentencing court  is

          insufficient to overcome  the law of  the case doctrine.   As  we

          stated in  Cohen v.  Brown  University, "only  a few  exceptional
                     _____     _________________

          circumstances can  overcome the interests served  by adherence to

          the  [law of the case] doctrine and those exceptions are narrowly

          circumscribed."   Id.   It  is insufficient  for  appellant Boots
                            ___

          simply to point  to comments  by the district  court that  differ

          from comments made by that court prior to Boots I without showing
                                                    _______

          that these  comments amount to substantially  different evidence.

          As  he has failed  to show that  substantially different evidence

          was  presented, we affirm the district court's decision as to the

          acceptance of responsibility issue.1

                    Boots' second argument is that the district court erred

          in imposing a  fourteen month sentence.  He does not dispute that

          the  district court correctly calculated  his offense level to be

          thirteen,  which implies a  sentence range of  twelve to eighteen
                              
          ____________________

          1   We  add that  even if  we decided  that the  law of  the case
          doctrine  did not  apply,  we would  be  required to  affirm  the
          district court  decision unless it were  clearly erroneous, which
          it is not.  See United States v. Royer, 895 F.2d 28, 30 (1st Cir.
                      ___ _____________    _____
          1990).

                                         -3-

          months.    He claims,  however, that  in  choosing a  sentence of

          fourteen months,  the court impermissibly considered  tax revenue

          loss suffered by Canada.

                    As a general  rule, it is  established that this  court

          ordinarily  has no jurisdiction  to review a  sentence within the

          applicable sentencing guideline range if that range was correctly

          determined.  United  States v. Panet-Collazo,  960 F.2d 256,  261
                       ______________    _____________

          (1st  Cir.  1992).    Since  there  is  no  indication  that  the

          sentencing  court's affixation  of  the  fourteen-month term  was

          otherwise "in violation of law,"2 18 U.S.C.   3742(a)(1), we lack

          jurisdiction to consider this claim.  See United States v. Col n,
                                                ___ _____________    _____

          884 F.2d 1550 (2d Cir. 1989).

                    Affirmed.
                    Affirmed
                    ________

                              
          ____________________

          2  On plain error review,  we conclude that the district  court's
          consideration  of the Canadian  tax revenue loss,  although not a
          predicate for wire fraud, see United States v. Boots, 80 F.3d 580
                                    ___ _____________    _____
          (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 417 S. Ct. 263 (1996), was not improper
                      ____________
          given that  the  guidelines permit  the  court to  consider  "any
          information  . . . unless otherwise prohibited by law."  U.S.S.G.
            1B1.4.     We  note  also  that  other  circuits  have  allowed
          consideration  of foreign  convictions in  determining sentencing
          within the applicable range.   See United States v.  Soliman, 889
                                         ___ _____________     _______
          F.2d 441  (2d Cir. 1989)  (interpreting United States  v. Tucker,
                                                  _____________     ______
          404 U.S. 443 (1972)).   See also United States  v. Fleishman, 684
                                  ________ _____________     _________
          F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1982).

                                         -4-