Court Opinion

ID: 2964085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:11.886853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:50.020012
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        April 15, 1996          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2270

                                 ALONZO ALZATE-YEPEZ,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                      [Hon. Michael Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Alonzo Alzate-Yepez on brief pro se.
            ___________________
            Donald  K. Stern,  United  States Attorney,  and  Andrew  Levchuk,
            ________________                                  _______________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   After careful review  of the parties'
                      __________

            briefs and the limited appellate record, we conclude that the

            district court  properly denied appellant's 28  U.S.C.   2255

            petition.  

                      Appellant's claims fail procedurally because he did

            not raise them either at the time  of sentencing or on direct

            appeal.   See  United  States v.  Frady,  456 U.S.  152,  165
                      ___  ______________     _____

            (1982).  To  the extent  that appellant is  arguing that  his

            trial attorney provided ineffective assistance by  failing to

            move  for a  downward  departure, that  argument lacks  merit

            because there is no legal or evidentiary support here for any

            such departure.

                      Appellant's claim for a downward departure based on

            his status  as a  deportable alien  is without  merit. First,

            appellant's statutory mandatory  minimum sentence may not  be

            reduced.    See  U.S.S.G.    5G1.1(c)(2);  United  States  v.
                        ___                            ______________

            Rodriguez,  938 F.2d 319, 320  (1st Cir. 1991).   Second, the
            _________

            district  court  stated that,  even if  it  had the  power to

            depart,  it would not have done so.   "It is by now axiomatic

            that  a  criminal defendant  cannot  ground  an  appeal on  a

            sentencing court's discretionary decision not to depart below

            the guideline sentencing range."  United States v. Pierro, 32
                                              _____________    ______

            F.3d  611, 619 (1st Cir.  1994), cert. denied,  115 S.Ct. 919
                                             ____________

            (1995). 

                                         -2-

                      Appellant's  claim  regarding   the  safety   valve

            provision  fails because the  district court  determined that

            appellant did  not cooperate with the  government as required

            under 18 U.S.C.   3553(f)(5) and U.S.S.G.   5C1.2.  Appellant

            has   submitted   nothing   that   challenges   that  factual

            determination.  

                      Appellant's  claims regarding the amount of cocaine

            and  his role in the offense were  not raised in the petition

            addressed in this appeal,  and so we will not  consider those

            claims.  See United  States v. Jackson, 3 F.3d  506, 511 (1st
                     ___ ______________    _______

            Cir. 1993).  

                      Finally, as appellant has not pursued on appeal his

            claim that he  should have received  three, rather than  two,

            points for  acceptance of responsibility, we  deem that claim

            to have been waived.

                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________

                                         -3-