Court Opinion

ID: 2962735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:01:22.373873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:18.708991
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          August 8, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 94-1099                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                     BLAS CAMILO,                                Defendant, Appellant.                              -------------------------                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                 [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]                                                 ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                      Torruella, Selya, and Cyr, Circuit Judges.                                                 ______________                              _________________________               Daniel  S. Tarlow, with whom Richard D. Glovsky and  Glovsky               _________________            __________________      _______          & Associates were on brief, for appellant.          ____________               Jean B.  Weld, Assistant  United States Attorney,  with whom               _____________          Paul M. Gagnon,  United States  Attorney, was on  brief, for  the          ______________          United States.                              _________________________                              _________________________                    Per Curiam.   We have carefully reviewed  the record on                    Per Curiam.                    __________          appeal  and discern  no  breach by  the  government of  the  plea          agreement between it and the defendant.  We likewise find no hint          that  the district court violated  the representations it made to          the defendant at the change-of-plea hearing.  Consequently, there          is  no cognizable  basis  for  defendant's  request  that  he  be          permitted to withdraw his guilty plea.                    Defendant's  remaining assignments of  error pertain to          the imposition of  sentence.   The situation in  this respect  is          clouded by two recent developments.  For one thing, the Probation          Office's  policy in  connection  with a  matter  material to  the          computation of  drug quantity for purposes  of imposing mandatory          minimum sentences has changed  significantly.  For another thing,          the Second Circuit decided United States v. Darmand, 3 F.3d 1578,                                     ________________________          1581  (2d Cir.  1993)  (holding that  "[u]nlike the  [Sentencing]          Guidelines, which require a  sentencing court to consider similar          conduct in  setting a  sentence, the statutory  mandatory minimum          sentences  of 21  U.S.C.    841(b)(1) apply  only to  the conduct          which actually  result[s] in  a conviction under  that statute").          If this case correctly states the law   a matter on which we take          no view   it  may have substantial implications for  the duration          of defendant's sentence.   Under these unusual circumstances, the          parties  agreed at  oral argument  that these  developments merit          further consideration; and that, in the interests of justice, the          sentence  previously  imposed  should  be  expunged,  and  a  new          sentencing  hearing convened.   We agree.   We, therefore, vacate                                          2          the defendant's sentence and remand for resentencing.1                    The   defendant's   conviction   is   affirmed.     The                    _______________________________________________     ___          defendant's sentence  is  vacated.    The case  is  remanded  for          __________________________________    ___________________________          resentencing.          _____________                                        ____________________               1We envision that a full new sentencing hearing will be held          at which the court can consider not only the applicability of any          mandatory minimum sentence, but also, inter alia, the reliability                                                _____ ____          of   the  evidence  proffered  by  the  parties  and  the  proper          computation of defendant's criminal history score.                                          3