Court Opinion

ID: 2964586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:56.64713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:52.729757
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1860

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 JOSE BONILLA-ROMERO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________
                                 ____________________

            Rafael  Gonzalez Velez  and Rafael  Gonzalez  Velez Law  Office on
            ______________________      ___________________________________
        brief for appellant.
            Guillermo  Gil, United  States Attorney,  Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa,
            ______________                            _______________________
        Senior Litigation  Counsel, Edwin O. Vazquez,  Assistant United States
                                    ________________
        Attorney, and Nelson Perez-Sosa,  Assistant United States Attorney, on
                      _________________
        brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    MARCH 27, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.  Appellant Jose Bonilla-Romero appeals
                      ___________

            from  the district court's  denial of his  motion to withdraw

            his guilty plea  to one count of aiding and  abetting his co-

            defendants  in  knowingly,   intentionally,  and   unlawfully

            possessing  with intent  to distribute  cocaine and  from the

            court's  denial   of  his   request  for  an   acceptance  of

            responsibility reduction at sentencing.  We affirm. 

                      We conclude  that the district court  did not abuse

            its discretion in denying  the motion to withdraw the  guilty

            plea.  See United States v. Isom, 85 F.3d 831,  834 (1st Cir.
                   ___ _____________    ____

            1996) (describing our  standard of review and the  factors we

            consider  in reviewing the denial  of a motion  to withdraw a

            guilty plea).   Bonilla has  not disputed that  he agreed  to

            plead guilty in  a written  plea agreement and  that he  pled

            guilty under oath at a plea hearing which complied fully with

            the requirements of  Fed. R. Crim. P.  11.  His  assertion of

            innocence,  made  seven  weeks  after his  guilty  plea,  was

            clearly belated.  The testimony of one co-defendant suggested

            a  possible defense,  but  was directly  contradicted by  the

            testimony  of a  different  co-defendant,  whom the  district

            court obviously  credited.  See  United States v.  Wicker, 80
                                        ___  _____________     ______

            F.3d 263, 268  (8th Cir.  1996) (the district  court did  not

            abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty

            plea where the court had assessed the defendant's credibility

            negatively);  United States v. Caban,  962 F.2d 646, 650 (7th
                          _____________    _____

                                         -2-

            Cir. 1992) ("Because  credibility determinations are left  to

            the  sound discretion of  the trial court,  it seems unlikely

            that the  district court  abused its discretion  by rejecting

            Caban's  motion to withdraw his  plea which was  based upon a

            version of events that the court did not find credible.").

                      Since  Bonilla  protested  his  innocence  even  at

            sentencing, the district  court did not  err in declining  to

            grant   him  the   requested  acceptance   of  responsibility

            reduction.   See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines  Manual,   3E1.1,
                         ___

            comment. (n.3) (1995) (evidence that a defendant has accepted

            responsibility may be  outweighed by inconsistent  conduct; a

            defendant  who  has  pled  guilty   is  not  entitled  to  an

            acceptance  of  responsibility  reduction  "as  a  matter  of

            right"); United  States v.  Bradley, 917  F.2d 601,  606 (1st
                     ______________     _______

            Cir.  1990)  (affirming  the   denial  of  an  acceptance  of

            responsibility  adjustment where the  defendant had  tried to

            minimize his participation in the crime "to the bitter end").

                      The judgment  of the  district  court is  affirmed.
                      ___________________________________________________

            See Loc. R. 27.1. 
            _________________

                                         -3-