Court Opinion

ID: 2964582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:54.610588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:57.942527
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] 

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 96-1506

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                     GLADYS LIND,

                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________
                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

               Marlene  Aponte Cabrera,  by Appointment  of the  Court, for
               _______________________
          appellant.
               Jacabed  Rodriguez Coss,  Assistant United  States Attorney,
               _______________________
          with whom  Guillermo Gil,  United States  Attorney,  and Jose  A.
                     _____________                                 ________
          Quiles Espinosa, Assistant United  States Attorney, were on brief
          _______________
          for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    April 3, 1997
                                 ___________________

               Per Curiam.  Following a guilty plea to drug importation and
               __________

          distribution charges, appellant Gladys  Lind was sentenced to the

          statutorily mandated minimum term of 60 months imprisonment based

          on  the substantial amount of heroin involved.  She challenges in

          this appeal  the  district court's  failure to  grant a  downward

          departure in  the length of  her sentence.   Because there  is no

          evidentiary or legal basis for relief  from the mandatory minimum

          term, we affirm.

               Appellant  emphasizes  various  factors in  support  of  her

          request   for   leniency:  her   "extraordinary"   acceptance  of

          responsibility, her minor role as a courier and the small payment

          she was  to receive ($3,000),  a difficult personal  history that

          included diminished capacity stemming from a 23-year daily heroin

          habit,  her efforts at drug  rehabilitation, and her  status as a

          first-time offender.

               Even were we to  accept her assertion that a  five-year term

          is  overly severe  in these  circumstances,  we would  be without

          authority  to  ameliorate it.   Neither  of  the two  methods for

          escaping a  statutory minimum  is applicable: the  government did

          not move  for a departure  based on substantial  assistance under

          U.S.S.G.   5K1.1, see 18 U.S.C.   3553(e), and the district court
                            ___

          found that appellant  had failed to  fulfill the requirements  of

          the "safety valve" provision  of 18 U.S.C.   3553(f)  (U.S.S.G.  

          5C1.2).   Other  than in  conclusory references at  oral argument

          that  provide no basis  for appellate  second-guessing, appellant

                                         -2-

          has not  disputed the inapplicability of these  provisions.1  The

          statutory  minimum thus  stands as  an insurmountable  barrier to

          appellant's effort  to reduce her  sentence.   See, e.g.,  United
                                                         ___  ____   ______

          States  v. Rodriguez, 938 F.2d  319, 320 (1st  Cir. 1991) ("[T]he
          ______     _________

          [sentencing]  guidelines  do  not  supersede  a  minimum sentence

          mandated by statute.")2

               Moreover, even  if departure  were available here,  we would

          lack  jurisdiction to review the district court's decision not to

          reduce  appellant's   sentence.     Having  carefully   read  the

          transcript of  the sentencing hearing, we are  confident that the

          district court  understood its  authority to depart,  but decided

          against  doing so in this case.   See Tr. at  12 ("In the Court's
                                            ___

          opinion  no departure is warranted in this  case and the Court is

          bound by the mandate  of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.")   Such

                              
          ____________________

               1  Appellant's counsel  seemed to  suggest in  argument that
          appellant was given no opportunity to respond to the government's
          assertion   that  she   had  not   satisfied  the   safety  valve
          requirements.   At the sentencing hearing,  however, counsel made
          no  attempt   to  show   compliance  with  the   provisions,  and
          appellant's brief  also includes no argument  concerning   5C1.2.
          The issue is therefore entirely undeveloped, and consequently not
          before us. 

               2  At oral argument, counsel  did urge us  to reconsider our
          precedent holding that statutory minimum terms may not be reduced
          based   on  the   discretionary  guidelines   departure  factors.
          Regardless  of its substantive  merit, which we  do not consider,
          this argument  is unavailing because it was not raised below.  In
          the district  court, appellant simply sought a departure based on
          the  various  factors  noted  above; she  did  not  suggest,  and
          provided no  rationale for,  reversing the well  established rule
          that departures are unavailable when a mandatory minimum  term is
          set  by statute  unless the  "substantial assistance"  or "safety
          valve" provisions are satisfied.

                                         -3-

          discretionary decisions are not appealable.  See United States v.
                                                       ___ _____________

          Grandmaison, 77 F.3d 555, 560 (1st Cir. 1996).
          ___________

               Affirmed.
               ________

                                         -4-