Court Opinion

ID: 2964994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:53.234115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:13.580199
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1569

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                               CESAR MORALES-MARTINEZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Jose R. Franco Rivera on brief for appellant.
            _____________________
            Guillermo  Gil,  United States  Attorney,  Jorge  E. Vega-Pacheco,
            ______________                             ______________________
        Chief, Criminal Division,  W. Stephen Muldrow, and  Rebecca Kellogg-de
                                   __________________       __________________
        Jesus, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for appellee.
        _____

                                 ____________________

                                   November 5, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and
                 __________

            record presented in this appeal,  we perceive no error in the

            weapons  adjustment,  U.S.S.G.      2D1.1(b)(1),  applied  in

            calculating  defendant's  sentence.     That  adjustment  was

            adequately supported  by  the  government's  version  of  the

            facts,  to which  defendant admitted.    Defendant's argument

            that he did  not possess the weapon "in  connection with" the

            drug  transaction is unsupported by the appellate record, and

            we will not  disturb the  district court's  findings in  that

            regard.   Further, given the differing circumstances in which

            defendant and  his co-defendant were  arrested, charged,  and

            pled, we cannot conclude that the differing sentences imposed

            upon  them amounted  to error.   Thus  we reject  defendant's

            equal protection  argument, as well  as his argument  that he

            should  qualify for  safety  valve  relief  because  his  co-

            defendant did so.

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -2-