Court Opinion

ID: 2965024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:18.705719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:04.732771
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1449

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                     JOSE GUZMAN,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________
                                Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                 ____________________

            Jose Guzman on brief pro se.
            ___________
            Donald  K. Stern,  United  States  Attorney,  William F.  Sinnott,
            ________________                              ___________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, and Carolyn Crotty Guttilla, Suffolk
                                              _______________________
        University Law School, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  December 16, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   In this  appeal  from his  sentence, Jose
                 ___________

            Guzman raises three issues which  he concedes were not raised

            in  the district  court.  Accordingly,  "his sentence  can be

            reversed on  [these grounds]  only upon  a showing  of 'plain

            error.'" United  States v. Olivier-Diaz,  13 F.3d  1, 5  (1st
                     ______________    ____________

            Cir. 1993).  After careful  review of the record, we conclude

            that appellant has failed to make such a showing with respect

            to any of the issues he raises on appeal.  

                 The  district   court  adopted   the  undisputed   facts

            contained in the  PSR, as permitted by Fed.R.Crim.P.  32. See
                                                                      ___

            United States v. Van,  87 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.  1996).  It was
            _____________    ___

            not "plain error"  for the district court to  find that those

            facts supported a  finding that the substance  distributed by

            appellant was "cocaine  base" as that term is  defined by the

            Sentencing   Guidelines   for   the   purposes  of   sentence

            enhancement. See U.S.S.G.  2D1.1(c) and note (D).
                         ___

                 Nor does appellant's new sentencing factor  manipulation

            claim   provide  a   basis   for  reversing   his   sentence.

            "[S]entencing factor  manipulation is  a claim  only for  the

            extreme and unusual case." United  States v. Montoya, 62 F.3d
                                       ______________    _______

            1, 4 (1st Cir.  1995).  As  we reasoned in  a recent case  in

            which a similar claim was  made, "[g]overnment agents are not

            limited to replicating a suspect's largest unsolicited crime.

            In this case, the full  contours of the criminal operation --

            its size,  techniques, personnel  -- were,  like an  iceberg,

                                         -2-

            largely  submerged;   and  the  means  of   exploration  were

            additional and  larger transactions.  . .  . While  the sting

            could not be endlessly prolonged and enlarged, nothing in the

            objective  facts  suggests  'misconduct'  at  all,  let alone

            'extraordinary' misconduct.'"  United States v.  Egemonye, 62
                                           _____________     ________

            F.3d 425 (1st Cir. 1995).

                 Appellant's final  argument is  based upon  his mistaken

            impression  that the  district court  did not apply  a three-

            level reduction in his  base offense level for  acceptance of

            responsibility,  pursuant  to  the United  States  Sentencing

            Guidelines,  3E1.1.  Our careful review of the record reveals

            that the  district court  adopted  the guideline  application

            contained in  the presentence report, including a three-level

            reduction  for  acceptance  of  responsibility.    Therefore,

            appellant's final claim is entirely without merit.

                 Appellant's sentence is affirmed.
                                         ________

                                         -3-