Court Opinion

ID: 2965984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:47:19.478214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:51.472451
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       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] 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. 99-1368 <br> <br>                          UNITED STATES, <br> <br>                            Appellee, <br> <br>                                v. <br> <br>                     IGNACIO CUSTODIO-ROSIS, <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>                    Selya, Boudin and Lynch, <br>                        Circuit Judges. <br>                                 <br>                                 <br>                                 <br>                                 <br>     Alexander Zeno on brief for appellant. <br>     Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega-Pacheco, <br>Assistant United States Attorney, and Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant <br>United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>September 15, 1999 <br> <br> <br> <br>                                 <br>                                 <br>   <br>            Per Curiam.    Upon careful review of the briefs and <br>  record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err <br>  in basing defendant's sentence on the negotiated drug quantity.  <br>  See U.S.S.G.  2D1.1, n.12; United States v. Muniz, 49 F.3d 36, <br>  39 (1st Cir. 1995).  In the circumstances of this case, we <br>  cannot say that the district court was required to disregard  <br>  defendant's earlier assertions of capacity and intent to <br>  deliver the full quantity. <br>            We further conclude that the district court did not <br>  abuse its discretion in quashing the belated subpoenas.  In <br>  light of defendant's guilty plea and the limited issues <br>  remaining for the sentencing hearing, defendant's argument <br>  regarding an entrapment defense is entirely meritless. <br>            Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.</pre>

</body>

</html>