Court Opinion

ID: 2964193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:56.845482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:33:45.049345
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                              _________________________

          No. 96-1026

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                               ERIC JOEL CARRION-CRUZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges,
                                            ______________

                           and McAuliffe,* District Judge.
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

               Benicio Sanchez-Rivera, Federal Public Defender, and Juan E.
               ______________________                               _______
          Alvarez,  Assistant  Federal  Public   Defender,  on  brief   for
          _______
          appellant.

               Guillermo  Gil, United  States Attorney,  Jose   A.  Quiles-
               ______________                            __________________
          Espinosa,  Senior  Litigation  Counsel, and  Miguel  A.  Pereira,
          ________                                     ___________________
          Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for the United States.

                                 ____________________

                                    August 7, 1996

                                 ____________________

                    Per Curiam.  Defendant-appellant Eric Joel Carrion-Cruz
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          pled  guilty to  violating  the carjacking  statute, 18  U.S.C.  

          2119(3).  At the disposition hearing, the district court departed

          upward from the guideline sentencing  range to impose a  sentence

          of life  imprisonment.1  Carrion-Cruz assigns error to the upward

          departure.

                    We  have  carefully  examined  the  transcript  of  the

          disposition hearing,  the presentence  investigation report,  and

          the  briefs.  Since we are persuaded that the assignment of error

          lacks merit, we  summarily affirm.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.  We add
                                              ___

          only four brief comments.

                    First:   U.S.S.G.   5K2.0 allows  sentencing courts  to
                    _____

          depart from the guideline sentencing range in a given case if the

          court finds aggravating  or mitigating circumstances  that render

          the case atypical  and take it out  of the "heartland"  for which

          the  applicable guideline  was designed.    See United  States v.
                                                      ___ ______________

          Quinones,  26 F.3d  213, 216  (1st Cir.  1994); United  States v.
          ________                                        ______________

          Rivera, 994 F.2d 942, 946 (1st Cir. 1993); United States v. Diaz-
          ______                                     _____________    _____

          Villafane, 874  F.2d 43,  49 (1st Cir.  1989), cert.  denied, 493
          _________                                      _____  ______

          U.S.  862 (1989).   Here,  the  multiple killings  for which  the

          defendant was responsible      murdering four individuals (two of

          whom  were good samaritans  who had stopped  to offer assistance)

          within an  abbreviated time frame      transport  the defendant's

                              
          ____________________

               1In effect, the  court raised the defendant's  offense level
          by three levels (from 40 to 43).  Even for a first-time offender,
          Offense Level 43  commands a sentence of life  imprisonment.  See
                                                                        ___
          U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A (Sentencing Table).

                                          2

          activities well  outside the mine-run  of carjacking cases.   See
                                                                        ___

          U.S.S.G.  5K2.1 (encouraging courts  to consider upward departure

          from the otherwise  applicable guideline sentencing range  if the

          relevant offense conduct results in multiple deaths).

                    Second:   The defendant points to his youth and limited
                    ______

          intellect as mitigating  factors.  But his counsel  made much the

          same  argument  below,   and  the  district   judge  specifically

          commented upon  these factors in  passing sentence and  took full

          account of them.   Given the sentencing court's  special coign of

          vantage,  see Diaz-Villafane,  874 F.2d  at 49,  we cannot  brush
                    ___ ______________

          aside  that  court's  considered judgment  on  so  interstitial a

          matter.

                    Third:  The defendant's challenge to the reasonableness
                    _____

          of the upward departure is  unavailing.  Offense Level 40 permits

          sentences of up to 365 months for first offenders.  The magnitude

          of the ensuing  departure     to  a life sentence (Offense  Level

          43)     is reasonable, considering the sordid facts of the  case.

          See, e.g., Quinones, 26 F.3d  at 218 (explaining that  "unusually
          ___  ____  ________

          brutal, cruel, and degrading treatment" of victims "is emblematic

          of the  very sort  of sociopathic behavior"  that will  sustain a

          substantial  upward departure).   The  departure  here meets  any

          conceivable  test  of   reasonableness.    See,  id.   at  219-20
                                                     ___   ___

          (upholding 60% increase as  reasonable); Diaz-Villafane, 874 F.2d
                                                   ______________

          at 52  (upholding departure  that more  than doubled  defendant's

          sentence as reasonable). 

                    Fourth:  Relatedly, the Supreme Court's  recent opinion
                    ______

                                          3

          in Koon  v. United States, 64 U.S.L.W. 4512 (U.S. June 13, 1996),
             ____     _____________

          makes it  clear that we  must respect a district  court's special

          competence in sentencing  matters, see id. at 4516-17, and uphold
                                             ___ ___

          a departure sentence unless the court has  abused its discretion,

          see id.  at 4517.   In light of  the stark  facts of this  brutal
          ___ ___

          crime, a convincing  case of discretion  abused simply cannot  be

          mustered.

                    We  need  go  no  further.2    The  Supreme  Court  has

          instructed us that "it  is not the role of an  appellate court to

          substitute its  judgment for that  of the sentencing court  as to

          the  appropriateness  of  a particular  sentence."    Williams v.
                                                                ________

          United States, 503  U.S. 193, 205  (1992) (citation and  internal
          _____________

          quotation marks omitted).  In  essence, the defendant invites  us

          to contravene that precept.  On these facts, we have no reason to

          take so precipitous a step.

          Affirmed.
          ________

                              
          ____________________

               2Because  the upward  departure is  fully  justified by  the
          incidence of multiple deaths, we  need not address the sentencing
          court's alternative justifications for the sentence.

                                          4