Court Opinion

ID: 2964132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:02.982913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:51.270899
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 95-1824

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                             RIGOBERTO LANTIGUA-BONILLA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________
                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________
                                 ____________________

               Peter John Porrata for appellant.
               __________________
               Epifanio  Morales-Cruz,  Assistant  United States  Attorney,
               ______________________
          with whom  Guillermo Gil,  United  States Attorney,  and Jose  A.
                     _____________                                 ________
          Quiles  Espinosa, Senior  Litigation Counsel,  were on  brief for
          ________________
          appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                     May 20, 1996
                                 ___________________

               Per Curiam.  Defendant-appellant  Rigoberto Lantigua-Bonilla
               __________

          seeks return on constitutional  grounds of some $80,000 forfeited

          to  the  government  as part  of  his  plea  agreement.   Because

          appellant is a fugitive  who has failed to comply  with the terms

          of  his  sentence,  we  exercise our  discretion  to  dismiss his

          appeal.   See Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 113 S. Ct. 1199,
                    ___ ________________    _____________

          1203  (1993); Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 365-66 (1970)
                        ________    __________

          (per  curiam); United States v. Puzzanghera, 820 F.2d 25, 26 (1st
           ___  ______   _____________    ___________

          Cir. 1987).

               The relevant facts are as follows.  At our request following

          oral argument, the government submitted affidavits  detailing the

          circumstances of  appellant's fugitive status.   These statements

          reported  that the  Metropolitan Detention Center  (MDC) released

          appellant to  the custody  of the Immigration  and Naturalization

          Service  (INS) on July 25,  1995, upon completion  of his term of

          confinement  in the case now on appeal.  MDC officials apparently

          had not  received notification  that sentencing of  appellant was

          pending  -- scheduled  for August  31 --  in a  separate criminal

          case.  The INS released him on August 18.

               On August 31, 1995, after appellant failed to appear for the

          sentencing and his  attorney advised  the court that  he did  not

          know  his   client's  whereabouts,  a  warrant   was  issued  for

          appellant's  arrest.  On May  1, 1996, the  U.S. Probation Office

          notified the  district court that  appellant was in  violation of

          his  supervised release  conditions in  this case,  and requested

          that another warrant be issued for his arrest.

                                         -2-

               This case differs somewhat from prior cases in which we have

          dismissed an  appeal based on  an appellant's escape  because, at

          the  time of his erroneous release,  appellant already had served

          the  full term  of imprisonment  imposed in  the case  on appeal.

          And, his escape before sentencing  in the separate criminal  case

          does not provide a basis for dismissing this appeal.  See Ortega-
                                                                ___ _______

          Rodriguez, 113 S.  Ct. at 1209  (appellate sanction of  dismissal
          _________

          justified only if  there is a "connection between  fugitivity and

          the  appellate process"); United States v. Anagnos, 853 F.2d 1, 2
                                    _____________    _______

          (1st  Cir.  1988)  (absconding  before sentencing  should  affect

          consequences in the district court, not the appeals court).

               Appellant has  not, however, completed his  sentence in this

          case, which in addition  to the prison term, included  a two-year

          term  of  supervised release,  a fine  of  $10,000 and  a special

          monetary assessment  of $75.   He has paid  the $75, but  has not

          paid the  fine and,  as noted  above, has  not complied  with the

          supervised  release  terms.   Appellant  thus  has "flouted  `the

          restraints   placed  upon  him   pursuant  to  the  conviction,'"

          Puzzanghera,  820 F.2d at 27 (quoting Molinaro, 396 U.S. at 366),
          ___________                           ________

          and is in our view equally "disentitled" to call on the resources

          of the  appeals court, id. at  26, as a defendant  who escapes to
                                 ___

          avoid further custody.

               Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
                                           _________

                                         -3-