Court Opinion

ID: 2963703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:06.959338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:25.846667
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 30, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1228

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    JOSE GONZALEZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Lynch, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                     Aldrich and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                           _____________________

                                 ____________________

            Marcia G. Shein with  whom Law Office  of Miller and Shein was  on
            _______________            _______________________________
        brief for appellant.
            Geoffrey E.  Hobart, Assistant United  States Attorney, with  whom
            ___________________
        Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.
        _______________  ______________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.     Appellant,  who  pled  guilty   to
                      ___________

            conspiracy  and to possession of cocaine with intent to sell,

            appeals because of the sentencing  court's failure to allow a

            three  point   reduction  in  his  base   offense  level  for

            acceptance of responsibility.  U.S.S.G.   3E1.1.  We affirm.

                      The appeal  is a classic  example of taking  off on

            the  wrong foot.  Appellant's  brief flatly charges the court

            with "totally disregarding the plea [agreement]."  "Appellant

            specifically  bargained for, and  expected, . . .  the three-

            point  reduction . . . when entering his plea."  This was not

            so.  The agreement is to be read as a whole  for what it was.

            It was  between the  parties.   Appellant fails  to recognize

            that  though it  stated  he was  entitled  to a  three  point

            reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the agreement was

            that  the government  would so  recommend at  sentencing, and

            expressly recited that it was not  binding on the court.   In

            addition,  the  court  orally  repeated  this  admonition  to

            appellant before accepting his plea.

                      The Presentence Report originally  recommended that

            appellant   be   recognized   as  accepting   responsibility.

            Thereafter,  however,  a  supplementary  report  recited  new

            information tending to  show appellant's previous  statements

            about his role  to be  "an extreme minimization  of his  true

            offense behavior."   The government acknowledged  that it was

                                         -2-

            nonetheless  bound  by  the  agreement, and  recommended  the

            reduction.

                      Appellant was  allowed to address  the court before

            the   sentencing,   besides  presenting   his   case  through

            counsel.1  The court ultimately ruled,

                           I do not find on the totality of the
                      record before the Court that  there's any
                      genuine   acceptance   of  responsibility
                      here.

            The record  was short, but there was  adequate foundation for

            the court's conclusion.  See United States v. Royer, 895 F.2d
                                     ___ _____________    _____

            28,  29, 30 (1st Cir.  1990).  Appellant  spoke frequently of

            his children -- which the court said was irrelevant -- of the

            taxes  he  had paid,  and the  information  he had  given the

            government -- which the prosecutor felt had not been truthful

            -- and, generally, how, though  guilty, he was not as bad  as

            was  made out.   Acceptance  of responsibility  involves more

            than repetition  of a formula.   Id. at 30; United  States v.
                                             ___        ______________

            Ocasio-Rivera, 991 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1993).   The burden is
            _____________

            on the  defendant to prove  entitlement to a  reduction, id.,
                                                                     ___

            and we  see no clear error.   Id. at 5  ("[w]here a defendant
                                          ___

            resorts to evasions, distortions, or half-truths in an effort

            to  minimize  his   culpability,"  the  court   may  withhold

            acceptance-of-responsibility credit under   3E1.1).

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                
            ____________________

            1.  The court took this  step because appellant had requested
            a second change of counsel and the court refused.

                                         -3-