Court Opinion

ID: 2963584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:12:26.461068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:43.273996
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          September 5, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2280

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    WILSON OCAMPO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Dana A. Curhan on brief for appellant.
            ______________
            Guillermo Gil,  United States Attorney,  Jose A.  Quiles-Espinosa,
            _____________                            ________________________
        Senior  Litigation Counsel,  and Miguel  A. Pereira,  Assistant United
                                         __________________
        States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   Defendant-appellant  Wilson  Ocampo  pled
                 ___________

            guilty  to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, see
                                                                      ___

            21  U.S.C.      841(a)(1),  846, and  was  sentenced  to  the

            statutory mandatory minimum term of 120 months' imprisonment,

            see  21  U.S.C.    841(b)(1)(A).   After  the change  of plea
            ___

            hearing but  before sentencing, Congress enacted  18 U.S.C.  

            3553(f),  which  allows certain  low-level,  non-violent drug

            offenders  with  little  or  no  criminal  history  to  avoid

            mandatory minimum sentences.  See United States v. Rodriguez,
                                          ___ _____________    _________

            1995  WL 431015  at *1 (5th  Cir. July  21, 1995).   The sole

            issue raised  by this  appeal is whether  the district  court

            erred in failing to  consider Ocampo's eligibility for relief

            under    3553(f)  and the  related guideline  provision which

            applies the statute, U.S.S.G.   5C1.2.  

                 Since Ocampo failed to ask the sentencing court to apply

              5C1.2, the  "plain error"  standard applies.   See Fed.  R.
                                                             ___

            Crim.  P. 52(b);  United States  v. Olano,  113 S.  Ct. 1770,
                              _____________     _____

            1776-79 (1993) (discussing plain error review); United States
                                                            _____________

            v. Olivier-Diaz, 13 F.3d  1, 5 (1st Cir.  1993) (same).   The
               ____________

            120-month sentence  imposed by the district  court was within

            Ocampo's  guideline range  of  108-135 months'  imprisonment.

            Based on our review of the  record, however, it appears as if

            the  court  may  have   been  unaware  of  the  newly-adopted

            guideline provision  and mistakenly believed  that it  lacked

            any source of  authority to impose  a lesser sentence  within

            the  applicable  guideline  range.    Cf.  United  States  v.
                                                  ___  ______________

            McAndrews, 12 F.3d  273, 276 n.2 (1st Cir.  1993) (discussing
            _________

            circumstances   under  which   appellate  court   may  review

            discretionary decision not to depart).  

                 Strictly  speaking,  it  is  not "plain  error"  in  the

            literal  sense  for  a  district  court  to  ignore a  relief

            provision where the provision's  application depends upon the

            showing  of  specific  facts,  where  the  burden is  on  the

            defendant to  adduce those facts, and where the defendant has

            failed to do so.  But in criminal cases we  have authority to

            notice  possible defects,  whether or  not evident,  to avoid

            injustice;  and in this case  it is quite  possible that both

            the defendant and the court were unfamiliar with the recently

            adopted relief provision.   Cf. United States  v. Collins, 60
                                        ___ _____________     _______

            F.3d 4, 7 (1st Cir. 1995).  Under the circumstances, we think

            that justice  would be  served by  vacating the sentence  and

            remanding  in  order  to  permit the  defendant  to  make the

            required showing, if he can.  Accordingly, we vacate Ocampo's

            sentence and remand the  case so that the district  court can

            decide whether the conditions of   5C1.2 are met.

                 Vacated and remanded.  See Loc. R. 27.1.  
                 _____________________  ___

                                         -3-