Court Opinion

ID: 2964235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:22:35.383466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:52.871371
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          July 18, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1266

                                    UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  PETER M. CUMMING,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1267

                                    UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  PETER M. CUMMING,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                 ___________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________
                                 ____________________

            Peter M. Cumming on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Jay  P.  McCloskey,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Margaret   D.
            __________________                                   _____________
        McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        _________
                                 ____________________
                                 ____________________
                 Per  Curiam.     In  No.  96-1266,   the  order  denying
                 ___________

            appellant's  motion  for reduction  of sentence  is summarily

            affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.  Amendment 517 to the Sentencing
            ________   ___

            Guidelines,  which took  effect  in November  1995 and  which

            appellant  seeks  to invoke,  is  not among  those  listed in

            U.S.S.G.    1B1.10(c)  and so  does not  apply retroactively.

            See id.    1B1.10(a) ("If  none of the  amendments listed  in
            ___ ___

            subsection (c) is applicable,  a reduction in the defendant's

            term of  imprisonment  under 18  U.S.C.    3582(c)(2) is  not

            consistent  with  this  policy  statement  and  thus  is  not

            authorized."); see also, e.g., United States v. Lopez-Pineda,
                           ________  ____  _____________    ____________

            55 F.3d 693, 697 n.3 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 259
                                             ____________

            (1995); Desouza v. United States, 995 F.2d 323, 324 (1st Cir.
                    _______    _____________

            1993)  (per   curiam).    Appellant's  contention   that  the

            Sentencing  Commission lacks  the authority  to decide  which

            amendments will be given retroactive effect is mistaken.  See
                                                                      ___

            Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344, 348 (1991) (citing 28
            _______    _____________

            U.S.C.   994(u)).   And the suggestion that his  base offense

            level  (BOL) should  have been  capped  at 20  is based  on a

            misreading of the Guidelines.1
                                         1

                                
            ____________________

               1   Several asterisked  footnotes in the  Drug Equivalency
               1
            Tables,  see U.S.S.G.    2D1.1,  comment. (n.10),  state that
                     ___
            "the combined  equivalent  weight of  all  Schedule I  or  II
            depressants, Schedule III substances, Schedule IV substances,
            and Schedule V substances shall not exceed 59.99 kilograms of
            marihuana."  (That weight, under the Drug Quantity Table in  
            2D1.1(c),  translates  into  a  maximum  BOL  of  20.)    Yet
            appellant's conviction  involved a Schedule II  opiate rather
                                                            ______
            than a depressant, along  with a Schedule IV substance.   The
                   __________
            20-BOL cap is thus inapplicable. 

                                         -2-

                 In No. 96-1267,  the judgment dismissing appellant's  28

            U.S.C.    2255 petition is  summarily affirmed.   See Loc. R.
                                                  ________    ___

            27.1.   As  the district  court properly  observed, the  only

            specific  allegations  of ineffective  assistance  of counsel

            that were there advanced involve  the assertion that a double

            jeopardy  defense  was not  adequately  raised.   This  court

            explicitly rejected appellant's  double jeopardy argument  on

            direct  appeal.  See  United States v.  Cumming, No. 93-1960,
                             ___  _____________     _______

            1994 WL 413368, at *1 (1st Cir. 1994)  (per curiam); see also
                                                                 ________

            Cumming  v. United States, No. 94-2070, 1995 WL 463097, at *1
            _______     _____________

            (1st  Cir. 1995)  (per curiam)  (noting  that such  claim had

            earlier  been rejected).   As  a result,  the assertion  that

            counsel was ineffective in that regard necessarily falters.

                 The motion for bail pending appeal is denied.
                                                       ______

                 So ordered.
                 __________

                                         -3-