Court Opinion

ID: 2964064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:19:54.634438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:49.900429
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          April 24, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1192

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   ROBERTO ROSALES,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                 ____________________

            Theodore L. Craft on brief for appellant.
            _________________
            Guillermo Gil,  United States  Attorney, Jose A.  Quiles-Espinosa,
            _____________                            ________________________
        Senior  Litigation Counsel,  and Miguel  A. Pereira,  Assistant United
                                         __________________
        States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.  In United  States v. Rosales,  19 F.3d 763
                 ___________      ______________    _______

            (1st  Cir. 1994), this  court affirmed defendant's conviction

            on  four counts of abusive sexual conduct, in violation of 18

            U.S.C.   2244(a)(1), but remanded for resentencing because of

            the district court's  failure to provide a  rationale for the

            degree of upward departure undertaken.  On remand,  the lower

            court again departed  upward under U.S.S.G.   5K2.0 and again

            imposed a 120-month prison term.  Defendant  now advances two

            principal challenges to his new sentence--insisting  that (1)

            the imposition of a  two-level enhancement under    3C1.1 for

            obstruction  of justice was unwarranted, and (2) the level of

            upward  departure was  unreasonable.   As  neither contention

            proves persuasive, we summarily affirm. 

                 Extended  discussion  is  unnecessary.     The     3C1.1

            enhancement was grounded  on the district court's  conclusion

            that  defendant committed perjury  during his trial testimony

            by repeatedly denying any involvement in the specific offense

            conduct charged.  See,  e.g., United States v. Dunnigan,  507
                              ___   ____  _____________    ________

            U.S. 87, 98  (1993) ("Upon  a proper  determination that  the

            accused  has committed  perjury at  trial, an  enhancement of

            sentence is required by the  Sentencing Guidelines.").  In so

            concluding,  the court  applied  the correct  legal test  for

            perjury:  "whether  the  defendant  intentionally  gave false

            testimony concerning  a material  matter."  United  States v.
                                                        ______________

            Campbell, 61 F.3d  976, 984  (1st Cir. 1995).   Its  findings
            ________

                                         -2-

            adequately   encompassed   all  of   the   necessary  factual

            predicates.  See, e.g.,  United States v. Matiz, 14  F.3d 79,
                         ___  ____   _____________    _____

            84  (1st Cir.  1994)  (rejecting challenge  to findings  less

            comprehensive than  those issued  here).  And  those findings

            were  adequately supported  by the  record.   Indeed, as  the

            district court observed, the  nature of defendant's denials--

            pertaining  to specific  allegations  of  personal  conduct--

            belied  any  suggestion  that  his inaccurate  testimony  was

            attributable  to  "confusion,  mistake,  or  faulty  memory."

            Dunnigan, 507 U.S. at 95.
            ________

                 In objecting to the upward departure, defendant does not

            contend that either of  the aggravating circumstances  relied

            on by  the district court was an improper basis upon which to

            ground a departure.1   He does not assert that  either factor
                               1

            was factually  unsupported.  And  he does  not reiterate  his

            earlier  argument   that   the  degree   of   departure   was

            unexplained.  Instead, he insists  simply that the extent  of

            the departure undertaken was unreasonable.  We disagree.  

                 The district  court departed upward by  eight levels and

            imposed  a term of 120 months--a sentence representing a 110%

            increase over  the applicable sentencing range  ceiling of 57

                                
            ____________________

               1  The court rested  its decision to depart upward  on two
               1
            factors:  the  fact   that  four   additional  victims   were
            identified beyond those involved in the counts of conviction,
            and  the fact that most of defendant's victims were abused on
            multiple occasions.    It  ended  up adding  four  levels  to
            account  for each of these concerns, for a total departure of
            eight levels.  

                                         -3-

            months.    Such a  departure,  while  substantial, cannot  be

            deemed anomalous;  we have upheld departures  of even greater

            magnitude on various occasions.   See, e.g., United States v.
                                              ___  ____  _____________

            Rostoff, 53 F.3d 398, 411 (1st Cir. 1995) (reviewing cases in
            _______

            which upward departures representing  increases of from  165%

            to  380%  over  the   respective  GSR  ceilings  were  deemed

            reasonable).  And  the 120-month sentence  was well short  of

            the  applicable  40-year  statutory  maximum.    Given  these

            considerations, given the  "persuasive[ness]" of the district

            court's explanation  for selecting the  degree of  departure,

            United  States v. Quinones, 26 F.3d 213, 220 (1st Cir. 1994),
            ______________    ________

            and given  the "substantial leeway"  that is accorded  such a

            determination, United States v. Pratt, 73 F.3d 450, 453  (1st
                           _____________    _____

            Cir. 1996), we  are unprepared  to say that  the court  acted

            unreasonably.2
                         2

                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ____________________________

                                
            ____________________

               2   Defendant  has listed  some five  other issues  in his
               2
            "statement  of issues,"  but  has provided  no argument  with
            respect thereto.  We therefore decline to address them.  See,
                                                                     ___
            e.g., McIntosh v. Antonio, 71 F.3d 29, 38 (1st Cir. 1995).  
            ____  ________    _______

                                         -4-