Court Opinion

ID: 2964111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:45.838065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:50.660022
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          May 30, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1061

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                             EMELIO SEVERINO-CANDELARIA,
                                     A/K/A JULIO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                  [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, Chief U.S. District Judge]
                                         _________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Raymond E. Gillespie on brief for appellant.
            ____________________
            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and  Michael J. Pelgro,
            ________________                                _________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed defendant's
                      __________

            appellate arguments, and, finding no merit in them, we affirm

            the sentence imposed by the district court.

                 Contrary to  defendant's first argument,   both the form

            and the substance of the district court's findings adequately

            support  the  two-level  enhancement under  USSG    3B1.1(c).

            Specifically, the  formal requirement of 18  U.S.C.   3553(c)

            was  satisfied  by  the  district  court's  adoption  of  the

            unambiguous and  undisputed PSR.  That  report indicated that

            defendant committed  to and executed the sales by himself and

            through  others,  supplied  the  drugs,  and  supervised   or

            directed at least  one other person (e.g., "Anna"  and Mota),
                                                 ____

            so  that  defendant's  role   in  the  offense  was  properly

            characterized  as  supervisory  or managerial.    See  United
                                                              ___  ______

            States  v. Schrader,  56 F.3d  288, 293-94  (1st Cir.  1996);
            ______     ________

            United States v. Morillo, 8 F.3d 864, 872 (1st Cir. 1993).
            _____________    _______

                 Further, we find  no clear error in the district court's

            rejection of  defendant's claim for an  extra reduction under

            USSG    3E1.1(b)(2).  Defendant only  indicated a conditional

            agreement  to   plead  guilty  some  six   months  after  his

            arraignment and when the  government was already prepared for

            trial;  he  renounced  the agreement  that  was  subsequently

            negotiated;  and he  did not  enter his  plea until  some ten

            months after arraignment.  Those facts support the conclusion

            that defendant's  notification of intent to  plead guilty was

                                         -3-

            not  "timely" for the purpose  of   3E1.1(b)(2).   See United
                                                               ___ ______

            States v. Morillo, 8 F.3d 864, 872 (1st Cir. 1993). 
            ______    _______

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -4-