Court Opinion

ID: 2964793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:31:13.814914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:50.555435
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                ____________________
       No. 96-2011 
                                   UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,
                                         v.
                                JOSE A. VIERA-RIVERA,
                      A/K/A CHEITO, A/K/A ANDRES GARCIA-RIVERA,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                ____________________
                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                ____________________
                                       Before
                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                ____________________
            Rafael Anglada-Lopez on brief for appellant.
            Guillermo  
                      Gil, United States Attorney,    Jeanette  
                                                                Mercado-Rios,
       Assistant United States Attorney, and  Jose 
                                                   A. 
                                                      Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
       Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.
                                ____________________
                                    July 23, 1997
                                ____________________

                 Per 
                     Curiam. Upon careful review of the record and the
            parties' briefs, we find no reason to overturn defendant's
            conviction or sentence. 
                 The identification evidence was properly admitted and
            sufficient. We agree with the district court that the
            witness's time and opportunity to observe her assailant in the
            car, her description of him, her certainty, and the relatively
            prompt identification rendered the identification reliable
            enough to place it before the jury.  See Neil v. Biggers, 409
            U.S. 188, 199-200 (1972). 
                 Defendant's additional objections to the testimony of the
            fingerprint expert are meritless. The expert's qualifications
            were stipulated, and the testimony adequately explained the
            recovery and comparison of the prints.
                 Even assuming we would have jurisdiction to review the
            denial of a downward departure, we would find no error. The
            district court expressly acknowledged its authority to depart,
            fully considered defendant's capacity (including the role of
            his drug addiction), and acted within its discretion to
            determine that no decrease was warranted under U.S.S.G. SS
            5H1.4, 5K2.0 & 5K2.13, whether those sections be read
            separately or together.
                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                                         -2-