Court Opinion

ID: 2964284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:23:12.911936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:26.485094
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2053
         

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                               JOSE LUIS MOZO SANCHEZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Theodore L. Craft on brief for appellant.
            _________________
            Guillermo Gil,  United  States  Attorney,  Epifanio  Morales-Cruz,
            _____________                              ______________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, and  Jose A. Quiles Espinosa, Senior
                                               _______________________
        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   August 22, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Upon careful review  of the briefs and
                      __________

            record, it  appears that this appeal  presents no substantial

            question.

                      We perceive no plain  error in the district court's

            acceptance of defendant's  guilty plea.  The  evidence of the

            overheard phone call does not suggest to us  that defendant's

            right of privacy was violated, that his plea was involuntary,

            or that the district court was required sua sponte to inquire
                                                    __________

            into the matter.

                      We also  perceive no plain error  in the sentencing

            proceedings  related to  defendant's medical condition.   The

            district  court postponed  sentencing  pending the  necessary

            medical  evaluations,  and  both sides  acknowledged  at  the

            sentencing hearing that those  evaluations were negative.  We

            find no basis for resentencing here.

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

                                         -2-