Court Opinion

ID: 2964254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:22:52.838583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:51.861805
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        September 6, 1996       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1189

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                               HUMBERTO PRADA-CORDERO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

            Ramon Garcia on brief for appellant.
            ____________
            Guillermo  Gil,   United  States   Attorney,  Nelson   Perez-Sosa,
            ______________                                ___________________
        Assistant  United States  Attorney,  Jose  A. Quiles-Espinosa,  Senior
                                             ________________________
        Litigation  Counsel,  and  Edwin  O.  Vazquez-Berrios,  Deputy  Chief,
                                   __________________________
        Criminal Division, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and
                 ___________

            record, it  clearly appears  that no substantial  question is

            presented and that summary disposition is appropriate.  

                 Defendant's drug sentence  was within the  legislatively

            authorized  sentencing range  for  that offense,  and so  the

            subsequent sentence for failure  to appear did not constitute

            double jeopardy,  even though  the drug sentence  included an

            enhancement for obstruction  of justice based on  defendant's

            failure  to appear.  See  United States v.  Jernigan, 60 F.3d
                                 ___  _____________     ________

            562, 564-65 (9th Cir. 1995).  

                 Further,  the total of the two sentences imposed for the

            drug offense and  the failure to appear  offense (113 months)

            was within  the applicable  sentencing guideline  range which

            would have applied if the two sentences had been imposed in a

            single  proceeding (97 to 121 months).   Therefore, the total

            sentence  was  consistent  with  the  sentencing  guidelines,

            including  U.S.S.G.     2J1.6  Application Note  3 and  3C1.1

            Application Note  6, and there was no double counting problem

            here.   Cf. United States v. Agoro,  996 F.2d 1288, 1291 (1st
                    ___ _____________    _____

            Cir. 1993).

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -2-