Court Opinion

ID: 2966208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:50:58.575222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:19.862192
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-1865

                          UNITED STATES,

                            Appellee,

                                v.

                          EDGAR CAMACHO,

                      Defendant, Appellant.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

            [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                    Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,
                        Circuit Judges.
                                
                                
                                
                                
     
     Joshua L. Gordon on brief for appellant.
     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Kevin P. McGrath,
Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

February 24, 2000

                                
                                
  
  
            Per Curiam.   After a thorough review of the record
  and of the parties' submissions, we affirm.  Drug quantity was
  not an element of the offense, so the lower court's failure at
  the Rule 11 hearing to explore the factual basis for the
  quantity specified in the plea agreement was not error.  United
  States v. Lindia, 82 F.3d 1154, 1160 (1st Cir. 1996).  We see
  no clear error in the court's finding at sentencing that
  Camacho should be responsible for the quantity specified in the
  plea agreement, especially in light of Camacho's agreement to
  be responsible for that amount, United States v. Marrero-
  Rivera, 124 F.3d 342, 354 (1st Cir. 1997); his admission that
  he was involved in the conspiracy during the times in question,
  United States v. Miranda-Santiago, 96 F.3d 517, 524-25 (1st Cir.
  1996); and the benefits Camacho reaped from the agreement, id. 
  Camacho's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not
  cognizable on direct appeal.  United States v. Torres, 162 F.3d
  6, 11 n. 3 (1st Cir. 1998).
            Affirmed.  1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).