Court Opinion

ID: 2964099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:29.660111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:55.604301
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 5, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1383
        No. 95-1941

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                ANTONIO MEDINA PUERTA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Cyr and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Antonio Medina Puerta on brief pro se.
            _____________________
            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and  Timothy Q. Feeley,
            ________________                                _________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Appellant Antonio Medina Puerta appeals the
                 __________

            denial by the district court of his motions for  a new trial,

            pursuant to  Fed. R.  Crim.  P. 33,  on  the basis  of  newly

            discovered evidence,  and for  a correction of  his sentence,

            pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35.  We affirm  the decisions of

            the district court.

                 Having carefully  reviewed the  record in this  case, we

            find  no  abuse of  the  district court's  discretion  in its

            implicit  determination that  the allegedly  newly discovered

            evidence presented by appellant was of insufficient weight to

            sustain his burden of showing that  it would "probably result

            in an  acquittal  upon retrial  of  the defendant."    United
                                                                   ______

            States v. Wright, 625 F.2d 1017, 1019 (1st Cir. 1980). 
            ______    ______

                 Appellant  also   claims  that  he  is   entitled  to  a

            correction of  his sentence because the  government allegedly

            miscalculated  what  his  sentence  would have  been  if  the

            Federal  Sentencing Guidelines  applied to  this case.   This

            argument is without merit since there is no evidence that the

            district court was influenced by the government's calculation

            when the  court imposed  its sentence in  this pre-Guidelines

            case.  Appellant's other  arguments regarding sentencing were

            not  raised in  the  district court  and  hence will  not  be

            considered on appeal.  United States v. Carrillo-Figueroa, 34
                                   _____________    _________________

            F.3d 33, 39 (1st Cir. 1994).

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

                                         -2-