Court Opinion

ID: 2963796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:15:17.39185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:00.678237
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          November 14, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 95-1416

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    MICHAEL OLUDE,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                        Selya, Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                              ______________

                              _________________________

               Mark F. Itzkowitz on brief for appellant.
               _________________
               Donald  K. Stern,  United  States Attorney,  and Michael  J.
               ________________                                 ___________
          Pelgro, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for the United
          ______
          States.

                              _________________________

                              _________________________

                    Per Curiam.  This is another in the long, grey line  of
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          sentencing appeals that trail  in the roiled wake of  the federal

          courts'  introduction   to  guideline  sentencing.     Defendant-

          appellant  Michael Olude advances a lone assignment of error.  He

          claims that he  was merely a minor participant in  the offense of

          conviction,  and that the lower court erred in refusing to reduce

          his  offense level accordingly.   See U.S.S.G.  3B1.2(b).   We do
                                            ___

          not agree.

                    Absent a mistake of law   and we discern none here   we

          review a  district court's  factual findings anent  a defendant's

          role in the offense only  for clear error.  See United  States v.
                                                      ___ ______________

          Akitoye,  923 F.2d  221, 227  (1st Cir.  1991); United  States v.
          _______                                         ______________

          Ocasio, 914 F.2d 330, 333 (1st Cir. 1990).  Although  this is not
          ______

          an  insurmountable hurdle, it is nevertheless a daunting one.  As

          we  have  said before,  battles over  a  defendant's role  in the

          offense are fact-based and, therefore, "will almost always be won

          or lost  in the district  court."  United States  v. Graciani, 61
                                             _____________     ________

          F.3d 70,  75 (1st Cir. 1995).  There  is no basis for a different

          result here.

                    We will  not belabor  the obvious.   See,  e.g., United
                                                         ___   ____  ______

          States  v.  Ruiz-Garcia,  886  F.2d  474,  477  (1st  Cir.  1989)
          ______      ___________

          (warning, in a  sentencing appeal, that an appellate court should

          not "wast[e]  overtaxed judicial resources razing  castles in the

          air").  The appellant  had the burden of proving  his entitlement

          to a  downward role-in-the-offense  adjustment.  See  Ocasio, 914
                                                           ___  ______

          F.2d at  332-33.    In  determining  whether  the  appellant  had

                                          2

          satisfied that burden, the sentencing court was not obligated  to

          accept   the   appellant's   self-interested   account   of   his

          involvement.  See United  States v. Paz-Uribe, 891 F.2d  396, 399
                        ___ ______________    _________

          (1st  Cir.), cert. denied, 495  U.S. 951 (1990).   And, moreover,
                       _____ ______

          even if, as appellant claims, he was merely a courier, he was not

          automatically   entitled   to   a  downward   role-in-the-offense

          adjustment.    See, e.g.,  United States  v. Lopez-Gil,  965 F.2d
                         ___  ____   _____________     _________

          1124, 1131 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 484 (1992); United
                                 _____ ______                        ______

          States v. Cepeda, 907 F.2d 11, 12 (1st Cir. 1990).
          ______    ______

                    We need  go no further.   Though appellant, represented

          on appeal by able counsel,  presents a somewhat sympathetic case,

          he has not  overcome the  formidable standard of  review.   After

          all, in the world  of guideline sentencing, "where there  is more

          than  one plausible  view  of the  circumstances, the  sentencing

          court's choice  among supportable alternatives cannot  be clearly

          erroneous."  United  States v. Ruiz, 905 F.2d 499,  508 (1st Cir.
                       ______________    ____

          1990).

          Affirmed.
          Affirmed.
          ________

                                          3