Court Opinion

ID: 2964386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:56.280299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:07.729895
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        October 28, 1996    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                   _______________

        No.  95-1672

                                    UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   ZAIDA GUTIERREZ,
                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                _____________________

                                     ERRATA SHEET

            The opinion of this  Court issued on October 9, 1996 is amended as
        follows:

            On page 2, line 15, change "form" to "from"

                   

        October 10, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1672

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   ZAIDA GUTIERREZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

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

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Benicio Sanchez Rivera,  Federal Public Defender, and Miguel  A.A.
            ______________________                                ____________
        Nogueras-Castro,  Assistant  Federal  Public Defender,  on  brief  for
        _______________
        appellant.
            Guillermo Gil,  United States Attorney,  Jos  A.  Quiles-Espinosa,
            _____________                            ________________________
        Senior Litigation  Counsel, Edwin O. V zquez,  Assistant United States
                                    ________________
        Attorney, and Nelson P rez-Sosa,  Assistant United States Attorney, on
                      _________________
        brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Defendant pled guilty  and was sentenced to
                 __________

            a  seventy-month term of  imprisonment for a  violation of 21

            U.S.C.   841(a)(1).   On appeal she argues that  the district

            court  erred   in  refusing  to  depart   downward  from  the

            guidelines  sentencing range  pursuant to  U.S.S.G.    5K1.1.

            After careful  review of the  parties' briefs and  the entire

            record below, we find no error.

                 Contrary  to the  defendant's assertion,  the government

            had  not   promised,  as  a  term  of  the  defendant's  plea

            agreement,  to file a   5K1.1 motion for a downward departure

            from  the  guidelines.   Although  the  motion  filed by  the

            government   originally   recommended   departure   for   the

            defendant's  substantial cooperation  under     5K1.1 and  18

            U.S.C.   3553, the government  corrected the motion orally to

            reflect its  actual intent to  request only a  departure from

            the  statutory minimum sentence pursuant  to   3553.   As the

            filing of a U.S.S.G.   5K1.1 motion is discretionary with the

            government,  United States  v. Raineri,  42 F.3d 36,  44 (1st
                         _________________________

            Cir.  1994),  cert. denied,  115  S. Ct. 2286  (1995),  it was
                          ____________

            within the government's discretion to correct its motion from

            one seeking departure from both the statutory minimum and the

            guidelines to  one seeking  departure from the  statute only.

            Absent  a    5K1.1  motion,  a  binding   obligation  on  the

            government to file such a  motion, or a failure to  file that

            is  based  on an  impermissible  motive,  the district  court

                                         -2-

            lacked authority to  depart below the  guideline range.   See
                                                                      ___

            Wade  v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992).  Because
            ______________________

            the  defendant could not show  the existence of  any of these

            factors, the district court properly held that it was without

            the  power  to depart  from  the  guideline sentencing  range

            pursuant to U.S.S.G.   5K1.1.

                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -3-