Court Opinion

ID: 2965161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:36:23.036816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:03.128001
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1918

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  MANUEL DE-LA-ROSA,
                                    A/K/A CAYAYO,
                                A/K/A GREGORIO FABIAN,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Joseph Frattallone-Marti on brief for appellant.
            ________________________
            Guillermo  Gil, United  States Attorney,  Jose  A. Quiles-Espinosa
            ______________                            ________________________
        and Desiree Laborde-Sanfiorenzo, Assistant United States Attorneys, on
        brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   January 30, 1998
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.    Defendant-appellant Manuel  de  la  Rosa
                 ___________

            appeals from  his sentence entered  after his guilty  plea to

            three   counts  charging  him   and  two  co-defendants  with

            attempting to bring illegal aliens by boat from the Dominican

            Republic  into the  United States,  at a  place other  than a

            designated  port  of  entry,  in  violation  of  8  U.S.C.   

            1324(a)(1)(A)(i) and  18 U.S.C.    2.  Rosa appeals  only one

            aspect  of his  sentence:   the district court's  decision to

            make an upward departure from the imprisonment range dictated

            by the  guidelines  because the  offense  involved  dangerous

            treatment.

                 We  have carefully reviewed  the record and  applied the

            three-part  review process  established in  United  States v.
                                                        ______________

            Diaz-Villafane,  874 F.2d 43 (1st Cir.  1989).  The departure
            ______________

            in  this  case satisfies  each  step  in  the process.    The

            relevant guideline provision  (application note 5 to    2L1.1

            of the  1995 Guidelines  Manual) satisfies  step  one of  the

            Diaz-Villafane analysis  by specifically  providing that  the
            ______________

            circumstances relied upon by the district court are of a kind

            that may appropriately  be relied upon to  justify departure.

            See United States  v. Reyes, 927 F.2d 48, 52 (1st Cir. 1991).
            ___ _____________     _____

            Step two is  satisfied by the undisputed facts  in the record

            which  support the district  court's findings.   Finally, the

            magnitude  of  the departure  is  not  beyond  the  realm  of

                                         -2-

            reasonableness.   See id.  at 53  (upholding departure  which
                              ___ ___

            tripled term provided by guideline range).

                 Rosa's complaint about an  unwarranted disparity between

            his  sentence and the sentences received by his co-defendants

            is  unfounded.  "Absent misapplication of the Guidelines, the

            mere fact  of the  disparity is of  no consequence."   United
                                                                   ______

            States v.  Rodriguez, 63 F.3d 1159, 1168 (1st Cir. 1995).  In
            ______     _________

            this case,  there was no misapplication of the guidelines and

            the  record contains  a fully  adequate  explanation for  the

            disparity.   See United  States v. Trinidad  de la  Rosa, 916
                         ___ ______________    _____________________

            F.2d 27, 30 (1st Cir. 1990) (holding that co-defendant should

            not  receive  an upward  departure  for dangerous  conditions

            where he neither owned the  boat nor determined the number of

            passengers).      "The   Constitution   permits   qualitative

            differences   in  meting  out  punishment  and  there  is  no

            requirement  that two persons  convicted of the  same offense

            receive identical sentences."  Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S.
                                           ________    ________

            235, 243 (1970).

                 Finally,   Rosa's   claim   that  the   district   court

            impermissibly double counted  by using his status  as captain

            of the vessel to increase his  sentence in two ways, is  also

            without  merit.   "Several  factors may  draw  upon the  same

            nucleus of operative  facts while  nonetheless responding  to

            discrete  concerns.  Consequently,  a degree  of relatedness,

            without more,  does not  comprise double  counting."   United
                                                                   ______

                                         -3-

            States  v.  Lilly,  13 F.3d  15,  19 (1st  Cir.  1994).   The
            ______      _____

            leadership-role enhancement  and  the  upward  departure  for

            dangerous treatment are  "neither conceptually nor  factually

            equivalent."   Rodriguez,  63 F.2d  at  1169.   There was  no
                           _________

            double counting in this case.

                 Rosa's sentence is affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                                    ________   ___

                                         -4-