Court Opinion

ID: 2964738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:22.49012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:32:57.159297
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit

                                 ____________________

          No. 96-1239

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  JOHN P. GAGLIARDI,

                                Defendant - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                _____________________

               Michael C.  Bourbeau, by appointment of  the court, Victoria
               ____________________                                ________
          M. Bonilla and Bourbeau & Bourbeau, Bonilla, Tocchio & Floyd, LLP
          __________     __________________________________________________
          on brief for appellant.
               Kevin  P. McGrath,  Assistant  United  States Attorney,  and
               _________________
          Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
          _______________

                                 ____________________

                                    June 25, 1997
                                 ____________________

                    Per Curiam.   Upon due consideration  of the briefs  of
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          counsel  and  the record  in this  case,  we affirm  the district
                                                       affirm
                                                       ______

          court's sentencing determination.

                    Defendant-Appellant  John Gagliardi  ("Gagliardi") pled

          guilty  on April 26, 1995  to six counts  involving conspiracy to

          possess with  intent to distribute  marijuana, under 21  U.S.C.  

          846,  possession with  intent to  distribute marijuana,  under 21

          U.S.C.   841(a), and liability  for criminal forfeiture, under 21

          U.S.C.    853.    At   his  sentencing  hearing,  the  government

          requested that Gagliardi's base offense level be reduced from 32,

          which  the  Presentencing  Report  ("PSR")  recommended,  to  30,

          pursuant to  the plea agreement.   The government  also requested

          that  a three-level enhancement be  added for Gagliardi's role in

          the  offense.  That  upward adjustment was  made, and ultimately,

          his total offense level  was determined to be 30,1  corresponding

          to a range  under the Sentencing Guidelines of 97  to 121 months.

          The government recommended, and  the sentencing court approved, a

          sentence  of 97  months imprisonment.   The  court also  denied a

          motion for downward departure.

                    Gagliardi alleges two  errors by the  sentencing court:

          first,  that  he  was   improperly  given  a  three-level  upward

          adjustment  pursuant to U.S.S.G.    3B1.1(b)2 for being a manager
                              
          ____________________

          1   Gagliardi  received a three-level  decrease in  offense level
          pursuant  to  U.S.S.G.    3E1.1(b)(2)  for  timely acceptance  of
          responsibility.

          2    Sentencing  Guideline     3B1.1(b)  mandates  a  three-level
          increase if  "the defendant was a manager or supervisor . . . and
          the  criminal activity involved five  or more participants or was

                                         -2-

          or  supervisor  in a  criminal  activity involving  five  or more

          participants;  and second,  that the  sentencing court  failed to

          consider facts  relevant to his  motion for a  downward departure

          under  U.S.S.G.    5K2.0 based  on unusual  family circumstances.

          Both allegations are without merit.

                    Gagliardi  appears  to  concede  that  four  other  men

          assisted in the storage  and re-packaging of the  marijuana which

          he had acquired,  thereby satisfying the requirement of  "five or

          more participants"  -- when one  counts Gagliardi himself  as the

          fifth participant -- under U.S.S.G.   3B1.1.  Moreover, there was

          ample factual support in the PSR for the district court's finding

          that Gagliardi was a "manager or supervisor."  

                    Contrary  to  Gagliardi's insinuations  on  appeal, the

          fact  that there were  other persons  who had  greater managerial

          responsibilities does  not render  the section  3B1.1 enhancement

          inapplicable to him.   See  United States v.  Goldberg, 105  F.3d
                                 ___  _____________     ________

          770, 777 (1st Cir. 1997)  ("[A] defendant need not be at  the top

          of a criminal scheme to  be a manager or supervisor.").   Indeed,

          the   well-established  standard  for  upward  adjustments  under

          section  3B1.1 requires  only  that there  be  "'evidence that  a

          defendant, in  committing the  crime, exercised control  over, or

          was otherwise  responsible for  overseeing the activities  of, at

          least one other person.'"  United States v. Voccola, 99 F.3d  37,
                                     _____________    _______

          44 (1st Cir.  1996) (quoting  United States v.  Savoie, 985  F.2d
                                        _____________     ______

          612, 616 (1st Cir. 1993)). The PSR confirms that this requirement
                              
          ____________________

          otherwise extensive."  

                                         -3-

          was met.   It states, for example, that  Gagliardi directed a co-

          conspirator to bring large amounts of money he needed to purchase

          marijuana  in Arizona,  and that  Gagliardi directed  another co-

          conspirator  to   find  a  suitable  location   for  storing  and

          repackaging the  marijuana that  he had purchased.   Furthermore,

          evidence  related to  role in  the offense determinations  may be

          probative  "'by fair  inference.'"   See Voccola,  99 F.3d  at 45
                                               ___ _______

          (quoting United States  v. Tejada-Beltr n, 50 F.3d 105,  113 (1st
                   _____________     ______________

          Cir.  1995)).  In this case, one can reasonably infer Gagliardi's

          supervisory control  over those  who were engaged  in repackaging

          the marijuana at  the storage location (an  airplane hangar) from

          Gagliardi's responsibility for arranging the storage location, as

          well as from the fact that, after the four men were discovered in

          the hangar, they drove away and called Gagliardi.   In sum, there

          is no basis for finding any error in the district court's role in

          the offense determination, clear or otherwise.

                    Finally,  there  is  no   support  in  the  record  for

          Gagliardi's   contention  that  the   district  court  failed  to

          consider, or  prevented Gagliardi from  producing, facts relevant

          to his motion  for a downward  departure on the basis  of unusual

          family circumstances.  On  review of the record, it  appears that

          the  facts presented  in  Gagliardi's  eleventh hour  memorandum,

          which Gagliardi claims the district court improperly ignored, had

          already been  substantially brought to the court's attention in a

          previous sentencing memorandum,  in the PSR,  as well as  through

          defense  counsel's  statements at  the  sentencing  hearing.   We

                                         -4-

          further note that the district court did not abuse its discretion

          in  determining  that  the  facts  regarding  Gagliardi's  family

          circumstances  --   the  most   noteworthy  of  which   are  that

          Gagliardi's  youngest daughter has  an attention deficit disorder

          and that her mother is being treated for breast cancer -- are not

          of  a kind so extraordinary  as to warrant  a downward departure.

          See   U.S.S.G.    5H1.6 ("Family  ties .  . .  are not ordinarily
          ___

          relevant."); United  States v.  Rivera, 994 F.2d  942, (1st  Cir.
                       ______________     ______

          1993) (family  circumstances do  not ordinarily  warrant downward

          departure); compare United  States v. Sclamo,  997 F.2d 970,  972
                      _______ ______________    ______

          (1st Cir. 1993) (affirming downward departure for defendant where

          psychologist  concluded that  defendant's  stepson, who  had been

          abused  by his  biological father,  had unique  relationship with

          defendant and  needed defendant's presence to continue recovery);

          United  States v.  Johnson,  964 F.2d  124,  129 (2d  Cir.  1992)
          ______________     _______

          (affirming downward departure where  defendant was sole caregiver

          to four very young children).

                    Affirmed.
                    Affirmed
                    ________

                                         -5-