Court Opinion

ID: 2965492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:41:10.022667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:30.841302
License: Public Domain

<head>

<title>USCA1 Opinion</title>

	<style type="text/css" media="screen, projection, print">

		<!--

		@import url(/css/dflt_styles.css);

		-->

	</style>

</head>

<body>

<p align=center>

</p><br>

<pre>      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] <br>                 United States Court of Appeals <br>                     For the First Circuit <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>No. 98-1713 <br> <br>                          UNITED STATES, <br> <br>                            Appellee, <br> <br>                                v. <br> <br>                       LUIS MORO-HERNANDEZ, <br> <br>                      Defendant, Appellant. <br> <br> <br> <br>           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT <br> <br>                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO <br> <br>         [Hon. Daniel R. Domnguez, U.S. District Judge] <br> <br> <br> <br>                              Before <br> <br>                      Stahl, Circuit Judge, <br>                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge, <br>                   and Lipez, Circuit Judge. <br>                                 <br>                                 <br> <br> <br>     Edgar R. Vega Pabon on brief for appellant. <br>     Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles- <br>Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Camille Velez-Rive, <br>Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>October 19, 1998 <br> <br> <br> <br>                                 <br>                                 <br> <br> <br>                                          Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and <br>    record, we conclude that the district court properly <br>    interpreted U.S.S.G.  4A1.1(d) in calculating defendant's <br>    criminal history category.   <br>              Defendant's prior diversionary disposition was <br>    properly "counted as a sentence" under  4A1.2(f).  It follows <br>    that the diversionary disposition was "a sentence countable <br>    under  4A1.2."  Therefore the diversionary disposition was a <br>    "criminal justice sentence" for purposes of  4A1.1(d), <br>    application note 4.  We find no merit in defendant's argument <br>    that the plain words of the application note should be read <br>    otherwise.  And because the instant offense was committed while <br>    defendant was under that diversionary disposition, the district <br>    court properly applied  4A1.1(d) to add two points to <br>    defendant's criminal history score. <br>              Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.</pre>

</body>

</html>