Court Opinion

ID: 2964865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:22.884477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:32:19.402007
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                 ___________________

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1527

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                     OMIL ARROYO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                         __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                             Hill,* Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                         and Pollak,** Senior District Judge.
                                       _____________________

                                 ____________________

            Stephen R. Kaplan, by Appointment of the Court, for appellant.
            _________________
            Margaret E.  Curran, Assistant United  States Attorney,  with whom
            ___________________
        Richard  W.  Rose,  Assistant  United  States  Attorney,  and  Sheldon
        _________________                                              _______
        Whitehouse,  United  States Attorney,  were  on brief  for  the United
        __________
        States.

                                 ____________________

                                  September 29, 1997
                                 ____________________

        _______________

        *Of the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
        **Of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

                 Per  Curiam.   Appellant Omil  Arroyo  was convicted  on
                 ___________

            charges of possession with intent to deliver 50 grams or more

            of cocaine base and 500 grams or more of powdered cocaine, 21

            U.S.C.   841(a)(1),   and sentenced to 151  months in prison,

            the  low  end  of  the  range  determined  by the  Sentencing

            Guidelines.   He  challenges both  the jury  verdict  and his

            sentence,  beginning with a claim that there was insufficient

            evidence to support the conviction.    

                 In reviewing a  verdict for evidentiary sufficiency,  we

            resolve  all legitimate evidentiary conflicts in favor of the

            verdict.  See United States v. Ruiz, 105 F.3d 1492, 1495 (1st
                      ___ _____________    ____

            Cir.  1997).  Arroyo's main insufficient-evidence argument is

            that  there  was no  proof  that  he exercised  dominion  and

            control over the  drugs in question.  However,  the drugs and

            related paraphernalia were found  in Arroyo's apartment, some

            in plain view.

                 Although Arroyo and a defense witness testified that two

            friends also lived in his apartment, the jury was entitled to

            disbelieve this testimony  in light of Arroyo's  inability to

            identify where these  friends worked or where  they had lived

            before  moving in  with him.   The government's  evidence was

            clearly "sufficient  to warrant a  jury to conclude  that the

            defendant  is  guilty  beyond a  reasonable  doubt."   United
                                                                   ______

            States v. Paiva, 892 F.2d 148, 161 (1st Cir. 1989).
            ______    _____

                                         -2-
                                         -2-

                 Arroyo also attacks the Sentencing Guidelines' treatment

            of  cocaine base  as 100  times  more serious  than an  equal

            amount of powdered cocaine.  This Court has already  rejected

            an  equal protection challenge  to the differential.   United
                                                                   ______

            States v. Singleterry, 29 F.3d 733, 740-41 (1st  Cir.), cert.
            ______    ___________                                   _____

            denied, 513 U.S.  1048 (1994).   Here, Arroyo simply  recasts
            ______

            the attack as a claim  that the differential should have been

            treated as a ground for a downward departure.

                 But  a  refusal  to depart  downward  is  not reviewable

            unless  it  rests on  a  mistake  of  law, United  States  v.
                                                       ______________

            Grandmaison, 77 F.3d 555, 560 (1st Cir. 1996), and Arroyo has
            ___________

            not  pointed to  any  misapprehension  of  authority  by  the

            sentencing judge.   Further,  even if  the refusal  to depart

            were reviewable, the use of  a 100-to-1 ratio is part of  the

            guideline--not itself  an unusual  circumstance or  condition

            that  might take the  case outside the  "heartland of typical

            cases" envisioned  by the Sentencing Guidelines.  See Koon v.
                                                              ___ ____

            United States, 116 S. Ct. 2035, 2044 (1996).  
            _____________

                 Finally,  Arroyo argues that the district court erred in

            ruling  that  he was  not  eligible  for the  "safety  valve"

            reduction provided by  U.S.S.G.   2D1.1(b)(4).   The district

            court  concluded that Arroyo had not satisfied the conditions

            of  this provision because he had  not truthfully provided to

            the government all  of the information  he had pertaining  to

                                         -3-
                                         -3-

            the offenses.   U.S.S.G.   5C1.2(5).  Arroyo  asserts that he

            is innocent and thus had no information to provide.  

                 Arroyo had the  burden of convincing the  district court

            that he qualified for the safety valve reduction.  See United
                                                               ___ ______

            States v.  Montanez, 82 F.3d  520, 523  (1st Cir. 1996).   We
            ______     ________

            review   only  for   clear   error   the   district   court's

            determination   that  Arroyo  was  guilty  and  so  did  have

            information  to  provide.    See United  States  v.  Miranda-
                                         ___ ______________      ________

            Santiago, 96 F.3d  517, 527 (1st  Cir. 1996).  Since  we have
            ________

            already  held that the  evidence was sufficient  to establish

            guilt  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  obviously  the district

            court's determination--based on a less demanding standard and

            a reversal of the burden of proof--cannot be clear error.  

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -4-
                                         -4-