Court Opinion

ID: 2963758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:50.310195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:45.856740
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          November 29, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1708

                                   WILLIAM MAHONEY,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            William Mahoney on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Sheldon Whitehouse, United  States Attorney,  Margaret E.  Curran,
            __________________                            ___________________
        Assistant United  States Attorney,  and Lawrence D.  Gaynor, Assistant
                                                ___________________
        United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   We affirm  substantially for  the reasons
                 ___________

            stated  in  the magistrate-judge's  May  5,  1995 report  and

            recommendation.  We add the following.

                 1.   We  reject petitioner's  argument that  no criminal

            history  point  should  have  been  added  for  the  offenses

            described in  paragraph 34 of  the presentence report.   That

            paragraph  plainly  states   that  petitioner  received   the

            "minimum sentence" after pleading nolo  contendere to driving
                                              ________________

            under the influence.  Consequently, this offense was properly

            counted  in petitioner's  criminal  history under  U.S.S.G.  

            4A1.1(c),  which directs a point  to be added  for each prior

            sentence (up to a total of four points).
            ________

                 2.   There is  no  merit to  petitioner's argument  that

            counsel was  ineffective in failing  to argue for  a downward

            departure  under   U.S.S.G.     4A1.3  on   the  ground  that

            petitioner's  criminal  history category  significantly over-

            represented the seriousness of petitioner's  criminal history

            or  the  likelihood  that  petitioner  would  commit  further

            crimes.    Section  4A1.3  gives  as   an  example  of  over-

            representation   a  defendant  with   two  minor  misdemeanor

            convictions  close  to  ten  years old  and  no  evidence  of

            intervening criminal behavior.   Petitioner's history is  not

            at  all comparable to the  example.  He  had five potentially

            countable misdemeanor  convictions (only four  of which  were

            counted in view  of   4A1.1(c)'s  four point limitation)  and

                                         -2-

            his  criminal  history  spanned  many  years.    Petitioner's

            criminal history was not over-represented and counsel did not

            provide  ineffective  assistance  in  failing  to  advance  a

            meritless argument.

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -3-