Court Opinion

ID: 2964764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:42.350413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:01.089998
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 96-1912

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                              PEDRO ANTONIO RAMOS-ROSA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                            and Lagueux,* District Judge.
                                          ______________

                              _________________________

               Ernesto Hernandez Milan on brief for appellant.
               _______________________
               Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jos  A. Quiles-
               _____________                          _______________
          Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, W. Stephen Muldrow and
          ________                             __________________
          Nelson P rez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief
          _________________
          for appellee.

                              _________________________

                                     June 9, 1997
                              _________________________

          _________________
          *Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.

                    Per Curiam.  Defendant-appellant Pedro Antonio Ramos-
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          Rosa (Ramos) challenges the sentence imposed following his guilty

          plea to carjacking (count 1) and an associated firearms charge

          (count 2).  See 18 U.S.C.    2, 924(c)(1) & (3), 2119(3) (1994). 
                      ___

          Having reviewed the record carefully, we detect no error.

                    In this instance, the sentencing court figured the

          applicable guideline sentencing range (GSR) to be 324 to 405

          months on count 1.  The government moved for a substantial

          assistance departure, USSG  5K1.1, and the appellant chimed in,

          seeking even greater clemency.  The court chose a sentence of 225

          months on count 1, followed by a mandatory minimum five-year

          consecutive sentence on count 2.

                    The appellant does not contest the correctness of the

          GSR.  Nevertheless, he asserts that the court blundered in

          denying him an appropriate downward departure by (a) erroneously

          considering his past criminal history (including a juvenile

          offense for which no conviction ensued), and (b) ignoring the

          purpose of USSG  5K1.1 and the policy of the Sentencing

          Commission in respect to offenders who assist the government. 

          Additionally, he contends that the district court erred by

          considering elements of the offense which already were considered

          by the Sentencing Commission when it assigned a base offense

          level to the crime of conviction.  These claims are meritless.

                    "It is by now apodictic that a criminal defendant

          cannot ground an appeal on the sentencing court's discretionary

          decision not to depart below the GSR."  United States v. Gifford,
                                                  _____________    _______

                                          2

          17 F.3d 462, 473 (1st Cir. 1994); see also Koon v. United States,
                                            ___ ____ ____    _____________

          116 S. Ct. 2035, 2046-47 (1996); Bruce M. Selya & Matthew R.

          Kipp, An Examination of Emerging Departure Jurisprudence Under
                ________________________________________________________

          the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 67 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 13-14
          _________________________________

          (1991).  This rule applies full bore to substantial assistance

          departures.  See United States v. Vaknin, ___ F.3d ___, ___ (1st
                       ___ _____________    ______

          Cir. 1997) [No. 96-1394, slip op. at 10-11]; United States v.
                                                       _____________

          Mariano, 983 F.2d 1150, 1155-57 (1st Cir. 1993).  In both
          _______

          situations, the departure decision is unappealable as long as it

          rests on differential factfinding or on the weighing of competing

          equities; jurisdiction only attaches "when it appears that the

          failure to depart stemmed from the sentencing court's mistaken

          impression that it lacked the legal authority to depart or,

          relatedly, from the court's misapprehension of the rules

          governing departure."  Mariano, 983 F.2d at 1153.  No such
                                 _______

          oversight occurred here.

                    The appellant labors to find a cognizable error, but he

          is unsuccessful.  The district court in fact departed downward. 

          The appellant's real dissatisfaction is that, as he sees it, the

          extent of the departure was not sufficiently generous.  In

          general, such complaints are not cognizable on appeal.  See
                                                                  ___

          United States v. Pighetti, 898 F.2d 3, 4 (1st Cir. 1990). 
          _____________    ________

          Moreover, looking to the whole of the record, see United States
                                                        ___ _____________

          v. Rostoff, 53 F.3d 398, 407 (1st Cir. 1995), it is perfectly
             _______

          clear that the trial judge knew he could depart once the

          government invoked USSG  5K1.1.  He in fact did so, choosing, as

                                          3

          was his right, to impose a sentence greater than the prosecution

          had recommended or the appellant had hoped but still below the

          nadir of the GSR.

                    The argument that the court should have gone further

          lacks force.  The transcript reveals that Judge Laffitte weighed

          the assistance that the appellant rendered (indeed, the judge

          noted that he had presided over the trial at which Ramos

          testified).  To be sure, the judge did not stop there, but a

          sentencing court is not restricted to considering only the

          defendant's substantial assistance on a section 5K1.1 motion; the

          court may (and should) consider other facts.  See Mariano, 983
                                                        ___ _______

          F.2d at 1156-57; see also 18 U.S.C.   3553.  Accordingly, we
                           ___ ____

          believe it is entirely appropriate that Judge Laffitte mulled the

          nature of the offenses and the appellant's participation in them. 

          The judge also fully considered the purpose and policies

          underlying section 5K1.1.  This is exemplified by the court's

          statement that, had Ramos not cooperated, the court "would have

          given . . . a life sentence," but refrained from imposing one

          because "cooperat[ion] with the government must also in some

          degree be rewarded as a lesson to others that might be involved

          in other criminal activities."  After pondering these

          considerations and other information in the record   all of which

          the court had a right to consult1   the court determined that,
                              
          ____________________

               1The record lacks any support for the appellant's assertion
          that the court inappropriately considered prior criminal conduct
          in assessing the sentence.  The court appears merely to have
          mentioned the prior conduct when suggesting that Ramos' criminal
          history category underrepresented his prior record.  The court

                                          4

          under the specific circumstances of the appellant's case, no

          greater leniency was warranted.  Such a decision was a judgment

          call, well within the sentencing court's discretion.  See Vaknin,
                                                                ___ ______

          ___ F.3d at ___ [slip op. at 13].

                    The appellant's second argument deserves very short

          shrift.  His one-paragraph reference transgresses the "settled

          appellate rule that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner,

          unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are

          deemed waived."  United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st
                           _____________    _______

          Cir. 1990).  That ends the matter.

                    We need go no further.  The district court's departure

          decision is quite clearly a permissible exercise of the court's

          informed discretion, unaccompanied by any detectable error of

          law.  We will not second-guess it.

                    The judgment and sentence are summarily affirmed.  See
                    The judgment and sentence are summarily affirmed.
                    ________________________________________________   ___

          1st Cir. R. 27.1.

                              
          ____________________

          then explained that Ramos ordinarily would have been a candidate
          for an upward departure on this basis, but, given his
          cooperation, the court instead weighed the underrepresentation in
          considering the extent to which a downward departure was
          warranted.  We discern no error.

                                          5