Court Opinion

ID: 2964788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:31:07.442154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:58.869432
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                ____________________
       No. 96-2270
                                   UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,
                                         v.
                                 MARIANO MIER TOUS,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                ____________________
                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
                   [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]
                                ____________________
                                       Before
                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                ____________________
            Luis Rafael Rivera on brief for appellant.
       Guillermo 
                 Gil, United States Attorney,   Nelson 
                                                        Perez-Sosa, Assistant
       United States Attorney, 
                              Jorge E. Vega-Pacheco
                                                   , Chief, Criminal Division,
       and Jose 
                A. 
                    Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for
       appellee.
                                ____________________
                                    July 29, 1997
                                ____________________

                 Per Curiam
                          . For the reasons stated by the district court
            in its order dated September 19, 1996, we reject defendant's
            contention that the government breached the plea agreement.
            The facts in 
                        United States
                                      v. 
                                         Velez Carrero
                                                      , 77 F.3d 11, 11-12
            (1st Cir. 1996), are distinguishable. 
                 Further, based upon the reasons stated by the district
            court in its orders dated September 19 and October 16, 1996, we
            conclude that the district court's refusal to depart downward
            is not subject to review here. 
                 As to a departure for aberrant behavior, there is no
            indication that the district court misapprehended the
            applicable guidelines or its authority to depart, and we will
            not disturb its plausible interpretation of the facts regarding
            defendant's planning of and gain from the fraudulent
            transactions.  See United States v. Grandmaison, 77 F.3d 555,
            560 (1st Cir. 1996). 
                 As to a departure for reduced mental capacity, the record
            shows that defendant did not request such a departure at
            sentencing, and so he may be deemed to have waived the issue.
            Our reading of the transcript of the sentencing hearing
            persuades us that the issue of such a departure was not raised
            at that time by the district court or either party. To the
            contrary, the district court only mentioned defendant's mental
            state in the context of considering the "thoughtlessness"
            factor of a departure for aberrant behavior. Defendant's
                                         -2-

            subsequent Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(c) motion was not an appropriate
            means of raising such a request, see United 
                                                        States v.  Abreu-
            Cabrera, 64 F.3d 67, 72 (2d Cir. 1995), and so we will not
            consider it now. In all events, the case for such a departure
            seems quite weak, and it appears altogether unlikely that the
            district court, had the point been squarely raised, would have
            departed.
                 The sentence is affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                                         -3-