Court Opinion

ID: 2964145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:16.934998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:14.485872
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          July 8, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1403

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   RAFAEL TAVARES,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Ronald Ian Segal on brief for appellant.
            ________________
            Donald K. Stern,  United States  Attorney, Paula J. DeGiacomo  and
            _______________                            __________________
        George  W.  Vien, Assistant  United  States  Attorneys,  on brief  for
        ________________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.     Defendant  pled  guilty  and   was
                      ___________

            sentenced to a six-year term of  imprisonment for a violation

            of 21 U.S.C.    846.  On appeal he argues  for the first time

            that the district court erred in permitting the government to

            point out  an error  in the presentence  investigation report

            (PSI) after the time for doing  so pursuant to Fed. R.  Crim.

            P. 32(b)(6)(B)  had passed.   This objection not  having been

            made below, it is reviewed for plain error only.  See  United
                                                              ___  ______

            States  v. Peppe,  80 F.3d  19, 22  (1st Cir.  1996).   After
            ______     _____

            careful review of the  parties' briefs and the entire  record

            below,  we find  no  error.   Pursuant  to Fed.  R.  Crim. P.

            32(b)(6)(D),   the  district  court  had  the  discretion  to

            consider at the time of sentencing the government's objection

            to  the  PSI's  manifestly  mistaken reference  to  grams  of

            cocaine rather than kilograms.  Based on the entire record of

            sentencing,  which  reveals   the  defendant   unquestionably

            accountable  for up to 100  kilograms of cocaine,  we find no

            abuse of discretion in  the district court's implicit finding

            of good cause to allow the government's tardy objection.

                      Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________   ___

                                         -3-