Court Opinion

ID: 2964766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:44.248349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:01.106130
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 96-1562

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                FELIX A. MARTES-REYES,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Juan M. P rez-Gim nez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                            and Lagueux*, District Judge.
                                          ______________

                              _________________________

               Rafael Anglada-Lopez on brief for appellant.
               ____________________
               Guillermo  Gil ,  United  States Attorney,  Jos  A.  Quiles-
               ______________                              ________________
          Espinosa, Senior  Litigation Counsel, Sonia I.  Torres and Nelson
          ________                              ________________     ______
          P rez-Sosa, Assistant  United States Attorneys, on  brief for the
          __________
          United States.

                              _________________________

                                    June 10, 1997

                              _________________________

           
          ____________________________
          *Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.

                    Per Curiam.  This  is a single-issue sentencing appeal.
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          Affording de  novo review to the  district court's interpretation

          of  the sentencing  guidelines and  its application  of governing

          legal principles, see United States v. Lindia, 82 F.3d 1154, 1159
                            ___ _____________    ______

          (1st  Cir. 1996),  we  conclude that  the court  did  not err  in

          sentencing  the  appellant to  18  months  of imprisonment  after

          revoking his probation.

                    We set the stage.  On October 14, 1992, a federal grand

          jury sitting in  Puerto Rico returned an  indictment charging the

          appellant  with  attempting  to  use  an  altered  United  States

          passport  while applying for admission to the United States.  See
                                                                        ___

          18 U.S.C.     1543.    After some  preliminary  skirmishing,  not

          relevant  here, the appellant pled guilty.  On December 18, 1992,

          the  court sentenced the appellant  to 36 months  probation.  The

          conditions  of  his  probation   included  the  following:    the

          appellant, while on probation, would neither commit another crime

          nor illegally possess a controlled substance, and, if deported or

          granted voluntary  departure, he would remain  outside the United

          States unless  he obtained  prior written authorization  from the

          pertinent authorities and met other benchmarks.

                    On August 24, 1995,  the appellant's probation  officer

          notified the district court that the appellant had violated these

          conditions.   The probation  officer reported that,  in 1994, the

          appellant had been arrested and convicted in New York for selling

          cocaine;  and that, on March 1, 1995, Customs agents had arrested

          and charged him with unlawful entry, false use of a passport, and

                                          2

          misuse of a visa.

                    On September 21, 1995, the  district court held a show-

          cause hearing  at  which  the  court found  that  probable  cause

          existed to believe that the appellant had violated the conditions

          of his probation.  On  October 5, 1995, the court held  a further

          hearing.   At the conclusion  of this hearing,  the court revoked

          the  term of  probation  which  had  been  imposed  in  1992  and

          sentenced the appellant  to 18 months imprisonment.   This appeal

          followed.

                    Revocation  of  probation is  governed generally  by 18

          U.S.C.    3565(b)  and the  policy statements  contained in  USSG

           7B1.3.  Policy statements are advisory in nature, see USSG Ch.7,
                                                             ___

          Pt.A,  intro. comment.; United States v. O'Neil, 11 F.3d 292, 301
                                  _____________    ______

          (1st Cir.  1993),  but when  correctly applied  they carry  great

          weight.   See Stinson v.  United States, 508  U.S. 36, 42 (1993);
                    ___ _______     _____________

          United States v. Piper, 35 F.3d 611, 617 (1st Cir.  1994).  Under
          _____________    _____

          them,  revocation  of probation  is  mandatory  if the  defendant

          commits a Grade  A violation,  see USSG  7B1.3(a)(1),  such as  a
                                         ___

          controlled substance offense.   See 18  U.S.C.   3565(b)(1);  see
                                          ___                           ___

          also 18 U.S.C.   3563(a)(3); USSG  7B1.1(a)(1)(ii).  Distributing
          ____

          a controlled substance constitutes a controlled substance offense

          for this purpose.  See USSG  4B1.2(2).
                             ___

                    Viewed  against this  backdrop,  the  appeal is  easily

          resolved.     The  New   York  conviction  for   selling  cocaine

          constituted  all  that  was  needed  to  revoke  the  appellant's

          probation.   See 18  U.S.C.   3565(b)(1);  USSG  7B1.3(a)(1); see
                       ___                                              ___

                                          3

          also USSG  4B1.2(2).   The appellant's  glossover of the  cocaine
          ____

          sale and  his concomitant  attempt to  portray himself  as having

          committed only a Grade B violation is disingenuous.  The short of

          the  matter  is  that the  cocaine  sale  constituted  a Grade  A

          violation, carrying with it a suggested  range of 12 to 18 months

          of   imprisonment   in   the    ensuing   revocation-of-probation

          proceeding.   See USSG  7B1.4(a).  The sentence that the district
                        ___

          court  meted out is within this range and is, therefore, entirely

          appropriate.1

                    We  need  go no  further.   For  the  reasons discussed

          herein, the appellant's sentence is  summarily affirmed.  See 1st
                                                         ________   ___

          Cir. R.27.1.

                              
          ____________________

               1In his  reply brief, the appellant takes  a different tack.
          He contends that he should have been sentenced based on a Grade B
          violation  because the drug offense that led to the revocation of
          probation   occurred  before  the   district  court  imposed  the
          probationary sentence.  This contention confuses the facts.   The
          court sentenced the  appellant to  serve a term  of probation  in
          1992.  The drug offense transpired almost two years later.

                                          4