Court Opinion

ID: 2964532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:05.919192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:24.003428
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1624

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  JOHN R. PAQUETTE,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Richard  D. Glovsky,  Daniel  S.  Tarlow  and  Glovsky,  Tarlow  &
            ___________________   __________________       ___________________
        Milberg on Anders brief for appellant.
        _______    ______

                                 ____________________

                                    MARCH 4, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Pursuant  to a written plea agreement,
                      __________

            defendant pled guilty  to being  a felon in  possession of  a

            firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.    922(g)(1).   In exchange

            for the plea, the government moved to withdraw an information

            charging prior offenses under  the Armed Career Criminal Act,

            18 U.S.C.   924(e)(1)  (effectively recommending that the Act

            not  be  applied);  offered  no opposition  to  a  sentencing

            decrease  for defendant's  acceptance of  responsibility; and

            recommended  a sentence  at  the low  end  of the  applicable

            range.  The court accepted the recommendation as to the Armed

            Career  Criminal Act,  and decreased defendant's  range three

            levels for acceptance of  responsibility.  However, the court

            also  increased  the  range  by  four  levels  under  USSG   

            2K2.1(b)(5),  and sentenced defendant  (within the applicable

            range) to 120 months  imprisonment, the statutory maximum for

            the offense.  

                      Defendant  now  appeals  from  the  sentence.   His

            appellate counsel  has submitted an Anders brief and a motion
                                                ______

            to withdraw,  asserting that  there is no  meritorious ground

            for  appeal,  but  suggesting  that  defendant  may  wish  to

            challenge  the   district  court's  application  of   USSG   

            2K2.1(b)(5).   See  Anders  v. California, 386  U.S. 738, 744
                           ___  ______     __________

            (1967);  Loc.  R.  46.4(a)(4).    Although  counsel  notified

            defendant  of  his  right   to  file  a  supplemental  brief,

            defendant hasnot filedabrief, andthe timeforfiling haspassed.

                                         -2-

                      After a careful review of the record, we agree that

            there  is   no  meritorious  ground  for   appeal.  The  plea

            proceedings  substantially conformed  to the  requirements of

            Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and we apprehend no error at sentencing.

            We agree with  counsel that there is  no support in  the case

            law for challenging the  district court's application of USSG

              2K2.1(b)(5) to the facts presented in this case. 

                      Appellant's conviction and  sentence are  summarily

            affirmed; counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
            ________                                  _______

                                         -3-