Court Opinion

ID: 2964101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:30.817917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:53.360349
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 5, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1204

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                               SIMON GONZALEZ-MIRANDA,

                                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.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            George D. Hepner, III on brief for appellant.
            _____________________
            Jay P.  McCloskey, United  States Attorney,  Jonathan R.  Chapman,
            _________________                            ____________________
        Assistant  U.S. Attorney,  and Margaret  D. McGaughey,  Assistant U.S.
                                       ______________________
        Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Defendant-appellant, Simon  Gonzalez-
                      __________

            Miranda, challenges  the district court's refusal  to grant a

            two-level    downward    adjustment    for   acceptance    of

            responsibility  to  his sentence  for  violating  8 U.S.C.   

            1326(a)  and (b)(2)  (illegal  re-entry  after  deportation).

            After careful review  of the parties' briefs  and the record,

            we  find no  reason to  disturb the  sentence imposed  by the

            district court.

                      A sentencing court has wide latitude in determining

            the propriety of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility

            under  U.S.S.G.   3E1.1, and  its finding on  this issue will

            normally  be set  aside only  if  clearly erroneous.   United
                                                                   ______

            States  v. DeLeon  Ruiz, 47  F.3d 452,  455 (1st  Cir. 1995).
            ______     ____________

            Where, as  here, the defendant's conviction  follows a trial,

            the reduction is reserved for  "rare situations" in which the

            defendant   may   clearly   demonstrate,  through   pre-trial

            statements and conduct, acceptance of responsibility  for his

            criminal  conduct.   U.S.S.G.    3E1.1,  Application Note  2;

            United States v. Bennett,  37 F.3d 687, 697 (1st  Cir. 1994).
            _____________    _______

            Clearly demonstrating acceptance of responsibility requires a

            show of contrition, id.  at 698, and whether a  defendant has
                                ___

            made this showing  is a  question of fact,  United States  v.
                                                        _____________

            Royer, 895 F.2d 28, 29 (1st Cir. 1990).
            _____

                      Although the  record  shows that  the defendant  on

            several occasions prior to trial, as well as during his trial

            testimony,  admitted his  guilt, the  record also  shows that

                                         -3-

            these admissions were  unaccompanied by  such expressions  of

            remorse necessary  to  indicate that  the  defendant  clearly

            demonstrated an acceptance of responsibility for his criminal

            conduct.  The  district court's refusal  to grant a  downward

            adjustment  under  U.S.S.G.     3E1.1 was  thus  not  clearly

            erroneous.

                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________

                                         -4-