Court Opinion

ID: 2964971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:39.522572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:03.270425
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1665

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                              NELSON ESTRADA-BERREONDO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                       [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Kenneth M. Diesnhof on brief for appellant.
            ___________________
            Sheldon  Whitehouse, United  States Attorney,  Margaret E. Curran,
            ___________________                            __________________
        Assistant  United  States  Attorney, and  James  H.  Leavey, Assistant
                                                  _________________
        United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  NOVEMBER 19, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   We  have examined the  submissions of  the
                 __________

            parties and  the record  below, and  we affirm.   Appellant's

            first  contention, that his  nolo contendere plea  for simple
                                         _______________

            assault in a prior state proceeding should have been excluded

            under U.S.S.G.   4A1.2(c)(1), is without merit.  The crime of

            assault is not substantially similar to the excluded crime of

            disorderly conduct.  Though an assault might  also qualify as

            disorderly conduct,  the former involves not only a threat to

            the public peace,  but also a threat to  the bodily integrity

            of  another individual.   Appellant cites no  authority which

            would equate the two crimes,  and at least two other circuits

            have  distinguished the two  crimes for purposes  of applying

            U.S.S.G.   4A1.2(c)(1);  see United States v.  Kemp, 938 F.2d
                                     ___ ______________________

            1020, 1025 (9th  Cir. 1991) (case remanded  for determination

            of  whether  defendant's   conduct  more  closely   resembled

            assault,  which would  be included  in  the criminal  history

            calculation, or disorderly conduct, which would be excluded);

            United States v. Russell, 913 F.2d 1288, 1294 (8th Cir. 1990)
            ________________________

            (assault is not similar to disorderly conduct for purposes of

            computing  criminal history); cf.  United States v.  Cox, 934
                                          ___  _____________________

            F.2d 1114, 1124 (10th Cir.  1991) (crime of "menacing" is not

            similar  to disorderly  conduct, since  the  former is  crime

            against an individual  and the latter is a  crime against the

            public peace and order).

                                         -2-

                 Appellant's other two  points were not raised  below, so

            this court may  reverse only for "plain error."   See Johnson
                                                              ___ _______

            v. United States,  117 S. Ct. 1544,  1549 (1997) (plain  error
            ________________

            must affect substantial rights and seriously affect fairness,

            integrity or reputation of justice system).  We find no plain

            error.

                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 _________

                                         -3-