Court Opinion

ID: 2963935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:43.613568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:33.071146
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2115

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    LINDA LAMBERT,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Philip  P.  Mancini and  Cloutier  &  Briggs, P.A.  on  brief  for
            ___________________      _________________________
        appellant.
            Jay  P.  McCloskey, United  States Attorney,  George T.  Dilworth,
            __________________                            ___________________
        Assistant U.S.  Attorney, and  Margaret D.  McGaughey, Assistant  U.S.
                                       ______________________
        Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  February 26, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Appellant Linda Lambert  appeals from
                      __________

            the district court's decision revoking her term of supervised

            release and  sentencing her for violating a  condition of her

            supervised  release.    Having  concluded  that  the   appeal

            presents no  substantial question of  law or fact,  we hereby

            summarily  affirm the court's decision under Local Rule 27.1.

            For the same  reason, we deny her motion  for release pending

            appeal.  See 18 U.S.C.   3143(b)(1)(B).  
                     ___

                      Lambert's primary contention on appeal  is that the

            court did not  explicitly consider, apply, or  articulate the

            sentencing  factors  set  forth in  18  U.S.C.    3553(a)(1),

            (a)(2)(B)-(D), and (a)(4)-(6).  In this circuit, a sentencing

            court need not make explicit findings on statutory sentencing

            factors, as  long as the  record reveals that the  court made

            implicit findings  or otherwise evinced its  consideration of

            the  relevant factors.   See, e.g., United  States v. Savoie,
                                     ____ ____  ______________    ______

            985 F.2d 612,  618 (1st Cir. 1993) (restitution  order).  For

            the reasons persuasively stated in the government's brief, we

            have  no doubt  that the  district  court gave  the requisite

            thought to all applicable statutory sentencing factors.

                      Lambert's remaining contentions are also meritless.

            First,  in  sentencing  Lambert, the  court  was  required to

            consider  applicable  United   States  Sentencing  Commission

            policy   statements,  including   statements  pertaining   to

            supervised   release   violations.      See   18   U.S.C.    
                                                    ___

                                         -2-

            3553(a)(4)(B),  (5).    Second,  as  the  revocation  hearing

            transcript makes plain,  the court had no  punitive intent in

            revoking Lambert's term of supervised release  and sentencing

            her  as  it  did.   Rather,  it  sought  to devise  the  most

            effective  means to ensure  her rehabilitation from  the drug

            abuse behind her crime of conviction.  

                      Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ____________________________

                                         -3-