Court Opinion

ID: 2964697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:29:49.397471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:58.881784
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            United States Court of Appeals
                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

            No. 95-2282

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 JULIO ANDRE VALDEZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                     [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges,
                                            ______________
                            and O'Toole,* District Judge.
                                          ______________
                                 ____________________

                Alan Scribner was on brief for appellant.
                _____________
                Margaret  E.  Curran, Assistant  United  States Attorney,
                ____________________
            with whom  Sheldon  Whitehouse, United  States Attorney,  and
                       ___________________
            Zechariah Chafee,  Assistant United States Attorney,  were on
            ________________
            brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                     May 20, 1997
                                 ____________________

            *Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

                                           

                      Per  Curiam.  Julio  Andre  Valdez  challenges  the
                      Per  Curiam.  
                      ___________

            district court's refusal to depart downward from the sentence

            prescribed by the U.S.  Sentencing Guidelines.  Specifically,

            he argues that the  sentencing disparity between cocaine base

            and  powder  cocaine  related  offenses  violates the  Eighth

            Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

                                          I.

                      A jury convicted Valdez  of one count of conspiracy

            to distribute  cocaine base ("crack" cocaine)  and two counts

            of  distributing cocaine base in violation of 18 U.S.C.    2,

            841,  and 846 on  April 25, 1995.   Valdez had  been arrested

            after  twice  selling crack  cocaine  to  a Drug  Enforcement

            Agency informant in Providence, Rhode Island. 

                      Based on the total  amount of cocaine base involved

            in  the   transactions  (105   grams),  the   district  court

            determined  Valdez's  base  offense   level  under  the  U.S.

            Sentencing Guidelines  to be 32.   His two  prior convictions

            resulted  in a criminal  history category of III.   The judge

            imposed a  sentence  of 151  months in  jail and  5 years  of

            supervised  release,  with  special  conditions  relating  to

            deportation  and  substance  abuse counseling  --  the lowest

            sentence permissible within the applicable guideline range. 

                      At the sentencing hearing Valdez made two arguments

            for downward  departure.   First, he  argued that  the United

                                          2

            States Sentencing Commission's  February 1995 Special  Report

            to  Congress (the "Report"),  which recommended  reducing the

            disparity between sentences for  crack offenses and those for

            cocaine  offenses,  constituted  a   mitigating  circumstance

            warranting a downward departure  under U.S.S.G.   5K2.0, p.s.

            Second,  he argued that  the court should also  depart on the

            basis  of  various  personal  characteristics,  such  as  his

            limited  education, pursuant  to U.S.S.G.    5H1,  p.s.   The

            court rejected these arguments and refused to depart.

                      Apparently having abandoned the claims for downward

            departure  based  on  specific  offender  characteristics and

            mitigating circumstances,1 Valdez  appeals his sentence on  a

            newly  raised ground:  that  the  100-to-1 disparity  between

            crack  and  powder  cocaine  penalties  violates  the  Eighth

            Amendment, and the district court was thus required to depart

            downward.

                                         II.

                      The court does not have appellate jurisdiction over

            a  court's discretionary  refusal  to depart  downward.   See
                                                                      ___

            United  States v. Saldana, 109 F.3d 100, 103 (1st Cir. 1997);
            ______________    _______

            United States v.  Sanchez, 81  F.3d 9, 10  (1st Cir.),  cert.
            _____________     _______                               _____

                                
            ____________________

            1.  Although Valdez's brief does not appear to challenge the
            court's refusal to depart on the ground that the Report
            constitutes "mitigating circumstances," the government
            addresses the claim in its brief.  To the extent that Valdez
            presents this argument, we reject it.  As we have previously
            held, the Report is not a permissible ground for departure. 
            United States v. Andrade, 94 F.3d 9, 14-15 (1st Cir. 1996).   
            _____________    _______

                                          3

            denied, 117 S. Ct. 201 (1996).   We can, however, review  the
            ______

            refusal if it was based on the mistaken belief that the court

            had no  authority to depart.   See Saldana, 109  F.3d at 103.
                                           ___ _______

            Even assuming that the court's failure to depart downward sua
                                                                      ___

            sponte on a ground  not raised before it is  reviewable under
            ______

            the latter principle, Valdez  still has a hurdle to  clear to

            achieve appellate review.

                      We  reject  Valdez's new  argument that  the Eighth

            Amendment prohibited  the sentence  he received.   Because of

            his failure to raise  the constitutional claim below,  we can

            review  only for plain  error.  United States  v. Carvell, 74
                                            _____________     _______

            F.3d 8, 14 (1st  Cir. 1996) ("[I]ssues not raised  below will

            not be heard on  appeal unless there was plain error.").   We

            see  no plain  error  here,  nor  has  any  such  error  been

            presented to us.  See United States v. Graciani,  61 F.3d 70,
                              ___ _____________    ________

            76 (1st Cir. 1995) ("At most, the Eighth Amendment gives rise

            to  a  narrow  proportionality  principle,   forbidding  only

            extreme sentences that  are significantly disproportionate to

            the  underlying crime."  (internal  citations  and  quotation

            marks  omitted)).  For  this reason, we decline  to reach the

            merits of Valdez's Eighth  Amendment argument or his argument

            that  this court  should  reconsider its  decision in  United
                                                                   ______

            States v. Singleterry,  29 F.3d 733, 740-41  (1st Cir. 1994),
            ______    ___________

            that, inter  alia, the sentencing disparity  does not violate
                  _____  ____

                                         -4-
                                          4

            the  Due   Process  and  Equal  Protection   Clauses  of  the

            Constitution. 

                      As for  Valdez's belated argument  that the cocaine

            in this case was not in fact crack cocaine, it is too little,

            too  late.  While  it is within  our discretion to  review an

            issue  raised  for  the  first  time  in  a  reply  brief  if

            exceptional circumstances  are shown, Aetna Cas.  Sur. Co. v.
                                                  ____________________

            P. & B. Autobody, 43 F.3d 1546, 1571 (1st Cir. 1994), we find
            ________________

            no  such  circumstance in  this  case  and  thus  decline  to

            exercise that discretion.  

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                  

                                         -5-
                                          5