Court Opinion

ID: 2964580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:53.202613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:25.387462
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1755

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  JAMES OTIS RAINES,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            Gordon R. Blakeney, Jr. on brief for appellant.
            _______________________
            Jay P. McCloskey, United  States Attorney, James  L. McCarthy  and
            ________________                           __________________
        Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for
        _____________________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    March 25, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and
                 ___________

            record,  we  conclude that  defendant's  plea  should not  be

            vacated.   The  district  court told  defendant  that he  was

            "subject to  a term of imprisonment which  is a minimum of 15

            years."   Even though the  district court did  not state that

            the  minimum sentence  was  "mandatory," that  slip does  not

            entitle  defendant to  relief  in the  circumstances of  this

            case.

                 Defendant offers  no  plausible reason  for his  belated

            attempt to change his  plea; he makes no claim  of innocence;

            and there is  nothing legally  suspect about the  plea.   The

            proceedings  as  a  whole suggest  that  defendant reasonably

            should have  understood, and  did understand,  the sentencing

            implications of his plea.  See United States v. Lopez-Pineda,
                                       ___ _____________    ____________

            55 F.3d 693, 696 (1st Cir. 1995). 

                 We   also  find  no   merit  in  defendant's  contention

            regarding an  enhancement for  obstruction of justice.   That

            enhancement  had  no bearing  on  the  armed career  criminal

            sentence   ultimately   imposed   here   under   U.S.S.G.    

            4B1.4(b)(3).  See United States v. Ruiz-Garcia, 886 F.2d 474,
                          ___ _____________    ___________

            476 (1st Cir. 1989).

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

                                         -2-