Court Opinion

ID: 2964937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:12.536044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:54.912184
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1079

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    BARRY TWOMEY,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Diana L. Maldonado on brief for appellant.
            __________________
            Donald   K.  Stern,   United  States   Attorney,  and   Jeanne  M.
            __________________                                      __________
        Kempthorne, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        __________

                                 ____________________

                                   October 14, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.    Defendant-appellant  Barry  Twomey  pled
                 ___________

            guilty  to two  counts of  bank robbery,  in violation  of 18

            U.S.C.   2113(a).    In sentencing  him,  the  district court

            awarded a two-level  reduction in his base  offense level for

            his  acceptance  of  responsibility,  pursuant  to   U.S.S.G.

             3E1.1(a).  The sole issue  on appeal is whether the district

            court committed  clear error  in denying  an additional  one-

            level reduction under  3E1.1(b). 

                 "A  defendant bears the burden of proving entitlement to

            decreases   in   the   offense  level,   including   downward

            adjustments  for  acceptance  of  responsibility.    Once the

            sentencing court has ruled against  him on such an issue, the

            defendant faces an uphill battle.  . . .The clearly erroneous

            standard  . .  .  guides appellate  review of  district court

            determinations  under section  3E1.1(b)."   United States  v.
                                                        _____________

            Morillo, 8 F.3d 864, 871 (1st Cir. 1993).
            _______

                 In denying  the  additional  one-level  reduction  under

             3E1.1(b), the  court ruled  that the  timing of  appellant's

            expression  of his intent  to plead guilty  had not permitted

            the government to  avoid preparing for trial.   Specifically,

            the  district court found  that when appellant  indicated his

            intention  to  plead  guilty,  ten  days  before  the  second

            scheduled  trial  date,  the  government   had  already  made

            substantial submissions and prepared its witnesses.   Neither

            that finding nor the court's determination on that basis that

                                         -2-

            appellant  did  not  qualify  for  the  additional  one-level

            reduction was clearly erroneous.

                 Appellant's sentence is summarily affirmed.  See Loc. R.
                                                   ________   ___

            27.1.

                                         -3-