Court Opinion

ID: 2964660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:29:03.870085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:09.262742
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                ____________________
       No. 95-1392
                                   UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,
                                         v.
                                   ERNIE SANTIAGO,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                ____________________
                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
                    [Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]
                                ____________________
                                       Before
                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                          Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                ____________________
            Antoinette L. Hall and Payne & Hall on brief for appellant.
            Donald K.  Stern,  United States  Attorney,  and Andrew  Levchuk,
       Assistant 
                United States Attorney, on Motion for Summary Disposition for
       appellee.
                                ____________________
                                   April 14, 1997
                                ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.    Upon  careful  review  of  the   record,
            appellant's brief, and  the government's  motion for  summary
            disposition, 
                        we 
                          perceive 
                                   no error in appellant's sentence as an
            armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. S 924(e)(1).  His three
            prior convictions properly were counted against him,  because
            they 
                involved 
                        different 
                                  dates, locations, and victims; it makes
            no 
              difference 
                         that 
                             two 
                                 of the convictions were consolidated for
            sentencing or  that  all three  of  the sentences  were  made
            concurrent.  See United States v. Riddle, 47 F.3d 460, 461-62
            (1st Cir. 1995). 
                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                                         -2-