Court Opinion

ID: 2964585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:56.028694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:41.427790
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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

                                 ____________________
        No. 96-1450

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   JEREMIAS GUZMAN,

                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                 ___________________
        No. 96-1608

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   NATANAEL GUZMAN,

                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________
                                 ____________________

            Ronald Ian Segal on brief for appellant, Jeremias Guzman.
            ________________
            William J. O'Hare on brief for appellant, Natanael Guzman.
            _________________
            Donald  K. Stern,  United  States Attorney,  William  F.  Sinnott,
            ________________                             ____________________
        Assistant  U.S.  Attorney, and  Patrick  M.  Hamilton, Assistant  U.S.
                                        _____________________
        Attorney, on brief for appellee.
                                 ____________________
                                    March 11, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.    Jeremias and Natanael Guzman  appeal from
                 __________

            their  sentences on two  related grounds.   First, they argue

            that the district  court erred in rejecting  their claim that

            government   agents  had   engaged   in   sentencing   factor

            manipulation by  requesting that  the cocaine they  purchased

            from  appellants be  delivered  in crack  rather than  powder

            form.  Second,   appellants contend  that the district  court

            erred in denying their request for an  evidentiary hearing on

            the sentencing  manipulation claim.  Natanael  Guzman filed a

            supplemental  pro  se  brief   in  which  he  raised  several
                          ___  __

            additional issues. 

                 This   court  has   emphasized   that  "garden   variety

            manipulation  claims are  largely  a waste  of  time. .  .  .

            [S]entencing  factor manipulation  is  a claim  only for  the

            extreme and unusual case."  United States v. Montoya, 62 F.3d
                                        _____________    _______

            1, 4 (1st Cir. 1995).  We agree with the district court that,

            even assuming the truth of the facts alleged by appellants at

            sentencing, appellants have  failed to demonstrate sentencing

            manipulation  amounting to  "extraordinary misconduct."  Id. 
                                                                     ___

            "Because manipulation  is largely a fact-bound  inquiry, even

            the   district   court's   ultimate  judgment   whether   the

            government's  conduct  is outrageous  or  intolerable  is not

            lightly to be disregarded." Id. at 4.  We  decline to reverse
                                        ___

            that judgment here.

                 The  district  court did  not  abuse  its discretion  in

                                         -2-

            denying appellants' request at sentencing  for an evidentiary

            hearing  on  the  issue  of  sentencing factor  manipulation.

            Under the  Sentencing Guidelines, "when  any factor important

            to the sentencing determination is reasonably in dispute, the

            parties  shall be  given an  adequate opportunity  to present

            information  to the  court regarding  that factor."  U.S.S.G.

             6A1.3.   In this case,  the facts in  the presentence report

            were undisputed.   The district  court repeatedly  questioned

            appellants at  sentencing about the facts that they sought to

            prove by introducing evidentiary  evidence.  Rather than hold

            a  formal hearing,  the court  assumed,  for the  purposes of

            sentencing,  the truth  of those  alleged facts.   The  court

            properly  concluded  that,   even  with  those   assumptions,

            appellants  were  not  entitled  to an  adjustment  in  their

            sentences.  There was no abuse of discretion.

                 In his pro se supplemental brief, Natanael Guzman raises
                        ___ __

            several  additional  issues, none  of  which  entitle him  to

            relief.   Natanael  objects belatedly to  certain evidentiary

            matters  related to the grand jury proceedings.  Even had the

            issues been  raised below  (which they apparently  were not),

            Natanael's guilty plea  "effectuates a waiver of  any and all

            independent  non-jurisdictional lapses  that may  have marred

            the  case's progress  up  to that  point."  United States  v.
                                                        _____________

            Cordero, 42 F.3d  697, 699  (1st Cir. 1994).   Natanael  also
            _______

            waived  his constitutional right to  a speedy trial, not only

                                         -3-

            by failing to assert  the right, but also by  contributing to

            the delay  when he moved for a continuance of the trial date.

            See  Barker v.  Wingo, 407  U.S. 514,  529 (1972).   Finally,
            ___  ______     _____

            because Natanael did  not present his  ineffective assistance

            claim  to the trial court  first, we decline  to consider it.

            See  United  States v.  Guzman, 85  F.3d  823, 830  (1st Cir.
            ___  ______________     ______

            1996). 

                 The convictions and  sentences of Jeremias and  Natanael

            Guzman are summarily affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1.
                       _________ ________  ___

                                         -4-