Court Opinion

ID: 2963437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:09:42.6557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:21.157690
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 7, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2146

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    JOSE M. DONES,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                         FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Jose M. Dones on brief pro se.
            _____________
            Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney  and  Juan  A.  Pedrosa,
            ______________                                  _________________
        Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee. 

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    The   sole  issue  raised  by  this
                      ___________

            sentencing  appeal is  whether  the district  court erred  in

            determining  that defendant-appellant  Jose  Manuel Dones  is

            ineligible for relief from  the statutory minimum penalty for

            his offense pursuant to  18 U.S.C.   3553(f) and  the related

            guideline  provision, U.S.S.G.    5C1.2.   For  the following

            reasons, we affirm.

                                          I.
                                          _

                      On May 16, 1994, co-defendant Hiram Antonio Collazo

            was arrested  at the Luis Munoz  Marin International Airport,

            Carolina, Puerto  Rico,  after customs  officials  discovered

            that a  leather portfolio  he was carrying  contained heroin.

            Collazo informed  the arresting officers that he  had gone to

            Aruba to pick up the  heroin, and that he was bringing  it to

            Dones,  who  had paid  him with  a  Suzuki vehicle.   Collazo

            agreed  to  cooperate  with  the government,  and  Dones  was

            arrested  that  same  day  after Collazo  made  a  controlled

            delivery of the heroin to him.

                      On June  27, 1994, Dones pled  guilty to possession

            of  heroin with intent  to distribute  it.   See 21  U.S.C.  
                                                         ___

            841(a)(1); 18 U.S.C.   2.  Prior to sentencing, a presentence

            investigation report (PSR) was  prepared.  The PSR determined

            the  guideline sentencing  range to  be 46  - 57  months, but

            noted that the statutory minimum term of imprisonment for the

            offense, which involved 333.6 grams of heroin, is five years.

            See 21 U.S.C.   841(b)(1)(B).  
            ___

                      A  sentencing hearing  was conducted,  and sentence

            was  imposed, on September 23, 1994.  At the hearing, defense

            counsel urged the district court to depart from the statutory

            minimum term of imprisonment  to a sentence at the  middle of

            the  guideline  range pursuant  to  18 U.S.C.     3553(f) and

            U.S.S.G.   5C1.2, which provide for relief from the mandatory

            minimum if five criteria are met.1  The  court found that the

                                
            ____________________

            1.  The statute provides, in pertinent part, that in the case
            of an offense under 21 U.S.C.   841, the court shall impose a
            sentence  pursuant to  the guidelines  without regard  to any
            statutory minimum sentence, if:

                      (1)  the defendant does not  have more than  1
                 criminal  history  point, as  determined  under the
                 sentencing guidelines;  

                      (2)  the  defendant  did not  use  violence or
                 credible threats of  violence or possess  a firearm
                 or  other  dangerous  weapon  (or   induce  another
                 participant  to  do  so)  in  connection  with  the
                 offense;

                      (3)  the offense  did not result  in death  or
                 serious bodily injury to any person;

                      (4)  the  defendant  was  not   an  organizer,
                 leader,  manager, or  supervisor of  others  in the
                 offense,   as   determined  under   the  sentencing
                 guidelines  and was  not  engaged  in a  continuing
                 enterprise, as defined in 21 U.S.C. 848; and 

                      (5)  not later than the time of the sentencing
                 hearing, the  defendant has truthfully  provided to
                 the Government  all  information and  evidence  the
                 defendant  has concerning  the offense  or offenses
                 that  were part of the same course of conduct or of
                 a  common scheme  or plan,  but  the fact  that the
                 defendant   has   no  relevant   or   useful  other

                                         -3-
                                          3

            first four criteria are  met.  However, after  making inquiry

            of the government,  it determined that the defendant  did not

            meet the  fifth condition that  he share with  the government

            all known information about the offense.  The court sentenced

            Dones  to  60 months  imprisonment,  followed  by a  term  of

            supervised release.  This appeal ensued.

                                         II.
                                         __

                      Dones  argues  that  the  district court  erred  in

            determining  that he  failed to  satisfy the  fifth condition

            under  18 U.S.C.   3553(f) and U.S.S.G.   5C1.2.  He contends

            that  although his co-defendant reached the government first,

            both  he and  his co-defendant  provided the  government with

            complete information.  He  further contends that the district

            court  misinterpreted  the  fifth  condition  and  found  him

            ineligible  for  relief from  the  statutory  minimum penalty

            because  he had no new  or useful information  to provide the

            government.

                      Contrary  to the  government's contention,  we have

            jurisdiction to review whether  Dones' sentence was  "imposed

            in  violation of  law"  or  "as  a  result  of  an  incorrect

            application  of  the sentencing  guidelines."    18 U.S.C.   

                                
            ____________________

                 information  to provide  or that the  Government is
                 already aware of the information shall not preclude
                 a determination by the court that the defendant has
                 complied with this requirement.

            18  U.S.C.      3553(f)(1)-(5).     The  guideline  provision
            essentially tracks the language of the statute.

                                         -4-
                                          4

            3742(a).2      We  review   fact-bound  matters   related  to

            sentencing for clear error.  See United States v. Andujar, 49
                                         ___ _____________    _______

            F.3d 16, 25  (1st Cir.  1995); United States  v. Wright,  873
                                           _____________     ______

            F.2d 437, 443-44 (1st  Cir. 1989).  A district  court's legal

            interpretation of  the guidelines  engenders de novo  review.
                                                         __ ____

            See  United States v. Talladino, 38 F.3d 1255, 1263 (1st Cir.
            ___  _____________    _________

            1994).  

                      Dones'  suggestion that the  district court refused

            to  depart from  the  statutory minimum  sentence because  he

            failed to provide new or useful information to the government

            is  baseless.   The record  reveals  that the  district court

            denied the requested  relief because it found  that Dones did

            not  come forward  and  provide complete  information to  the

            government concerning  his offense.  Accordingly,  we turn to

            whether this finding was erroneous.

                      When   asked,  at  sentencing,  whether  Dones  had

            provided  complete and  truthful information,  the government

            replied that it had not engaged in any discussions with Dones

            concerning the offense.  Defense counsel did not dispute this

                                
            ____________________

            2.  The government argues that we lack jurisdiction to review
            a district  court's discretionary refusal  to depart downward
            from  the  applicable guideline  range.    See, e.g.,  United
                                                       ___  ____   ______
            States  v.  Gifford,  17  F.3d  462,  473  (1st  Cir.  1994).
            ______      _______
            Although this principle is true, we assume arguendo (although
                                                       ________
            we  need not decide) that  it is inapplicable  here.  Section
            3553(f) and  the related  guideline provision do  not address
            departures from the guideline  sentencing range; rather, they
            provide  for  relief  from  mandatory  minimum  penalties  in
            certain cases.  

                                         -5-
                                          5

            statement, but  argued that Dones had  provided the necessary

            information to probation.   The probation officer stated that

            Dones was very  reticent in answering questions,  and that he

            only  told  probation  that  he  had  met  an  individual who

            requested  that he find someone to secure narcotics.  We need

            not decide, in the instant case, whether a defendant can ever

            avail  himself  of the  benefits  of    3553(f)  by providing

            information to probation, rather than to the prosecutor.  The

            district court  did not clearly  err in determining  that the

            few, sketchy details Dones came forward  with did not satisfy

            the requirement that he provide "all information and evidence

            [he] has  concerning the offense."   18 U.S.C.    3553(f)(5).

            At the  very least, Dones should have  disclosed the identity

            of the person  for whom he was operating.   See United States
                                                        ___ _____________

            v. Buffington, 879 F. Supp. 1220, 1223 (N.D. Ga. 1995).
               __________

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -6-
                                          6