Court Opinion

ID: 2964271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:23:02.505303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:53.510967
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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

                                 ____________________

          No. 96-1175

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   MICHAEL MURRAY,

                                Defendant - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                            Cyr and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                _____________________

               Daniel J. O'Connell III for appellant.
               _______________________
               George William Vien, Assistant  United States Attorney, with
               ___________________
          whom  Donald K.  Stern, United  States Attorney  and Geoffrey  E.
                ________________                               ____________
          Hobart,  Assistant  United States  Attorney,  were  on brief  for
          ______
          appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   August 28, 1996
                                 ____________________

                    Per  Curiam.  In United  States v. Catano,  65 F.3d 219
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________      ______________    ______

          (1st  Cir.  1995),  a case  in  which  Michael Murray  was  a co-

          appellant, we remanded his case for resentencing.   In sentencing

          him, the district  court had  enhanced his base  offense by  four

          levels pursuant  to   3B1.1(a), because it  concluded that Murray

          had an  aggravating role in  the offense  for which  he had  been

          convicted.

                    In remanding we concluded that:

                      [A]lthough the case  record may very well
                      support the four-level enhancement:
                         there is nothing in  the sentencing
                         record about  any of this.   Absent
                         explicit  findings,   it  could  be
                         overly  impetuous  for  us,  on  so
                         exiguous a predicate to jump to the
                         conclusion  that  [the  enhancement
                         requirements were met]. . . .

          Id. at 230  (quoting United  States v. McDowell,  918 F.2d  1004,
          __                   ______________    ________

          1012  n.8  (1st  Cir. 1990)).    We  thus  remanded "for  further

          articulation [by the district court] of  the reasons for imposing

          the adjustment in accordance  with 18 U.S.C.   3553(c)."   Catano
                                                                     ______

          at 230.  This important,  but limited, reason for the  remand has

          been fully complied  with by  the district court.   We  therefore

          reject appellant's present allegations in this respect.

                    Appellant's additional claim of error lacks a plausible

          factual foundation.  See  Liteky v. United States, 510  U.S. 540,
                               ___  ______    _____________

          ___, 114 S. Ct.  1147, 1155 (1994); El F nix  v. The M/Y Johanny,
                                              ________     _______________

          36 F.2d 136, 140 (1st Cir. 1994).

                    Affirmed.
                    Affirmed
                    ________

                                         -2-