Court Opinion

ID: 2963971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:18:17.746817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:49.127524
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          April 4, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2040

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 JOHN W. SHARP, III,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Philip  R.  Desfosses, Solomon  & Desfosses,  P.A. and  Richard N.
            _____________________  ___________________________      __________
        Foley on brief for appellant.
        _____
            Deval L.  Patrick, Assistant  Attorney General,  Dennis J.  Dimsey
            _________________                                _________________
        and Lisa J. Stark, Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, on brief for
            _____________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   Defendant-appellant, John  W. Sharp,
                      ___________

            III,  challenges the  district court's  imposition of  a two-

            level  upward adjustment  to  his sentence  for violating  18

            U.S.C.     1503 (attempted  obstruction  of  justice) and  42

            U.S.C.    3631(a) (interference by force and  threat of force

            with  housing  rights).   The  adjustments  were pursuant  to

            U.S.S.G.    3B1.1(c)  for  the  defendant's leadership  role.

            After  careful review of the  parties' briefs and the record,

            we  find no  reason to  disturb the  sentence imposed  by the

            district court.

                      "Absent  a mistake  of  law, the  district  court's

            determination of a defendant's role may be set aside only for

            clear  error."   United States  v. Luciano-Mosquera,  63 F.3d
                             _____________     ________________

            1142,  1157  (1st Cir.  1995).   The  determination  is fact-

            specific and may be based on circumstantial evidence and on a

            view  of  the whole  of  the  defendant's pertinent  conduct.

            United States v. Joyce, 70 F.3d 679, 682 (1st Cir. 1995).
            _____________    _____

                      The facts showed that the defendant was  one of the

            primary actors  in the  conceiving and  carrying  out of  the

            cross-burning,  including the transport of other participants

            in  his vehicle and  setting fire to the  cross.  These facts

            and  other  record  evidence  support  the  district  court's

            finding that the defendant  "participated in the initial idea

            with  regard   to   the  cross-burning   offense,   that   he

            participated  in   the  planning  and   preparation  for  the

            commission of the offense,  that he in fact actually  lit the

                                         -3-

            cross  on fire," and, thus,  played a leadership  role in the

            commission  of  the  offense.   See  Joyce,  70  F.3d at  682
                                            ___  _____

            (evidence of role in offense may be circumstantial).

                      We  need  not consider  the  defendant's additional

            claim that the leadership-role adjustment to the sentence for

            violation of 18 U.S.C.   1503 was  erroneous.  Any error with

            respect  to   this  sentence  would  not   have  altered  the

            defendant's combined adjusted  offense level  of fourteen  or

            affected  the  sentencing range.    "[W]hen  correction of  a

            finding  would not  change  the applicable  offense level  or

            affect  the  sentencing   range,  any  error   therein  would

            necessarily be harmless."  United States v. Bradley, 917 F.2d
                                       _____________    _______

            601, 604 (1st Cir. 1990).

                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________

                                         -4-