Court Opinion

ID: 2964285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:23:13.330368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:32:56.944055
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1071

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  G. DENNIS JOHNSON,

                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Richard H. Gens on brief for appellant.
            _______________
            Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, Jonathan  R. Chapman and
            ________________                          ____________________
        Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for
        _____________________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   August 22, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   The  defendant,  G.  Dennis Johnson,
                      ___________

            appeals  his  convictions  and  sentences  for conspiracy  to

            possess with  intent to  distribute heroin,  see 21  U.S.C.  
                                                         ___

            846, and for aiding  and abetting in the distribution  of and

            possession with intent to distribute  heroin, see 21 U.S.C.  
                                                          ___

            841(a)(1) and 18  U.S.C.   2.   After  careful review of  the

            parties' briefs and the  entire record, we find no  reason to

            disturb the judgment below.

                      The defendant challenges his  convictions, claiming

            the  evidence  was insufficient  to  prove  he possessed  the

            requisite mental  state,  i.e., that  he  was a  knowing  and

            intentional participant  in the  drug deal arranged  by Daryl

            Young, his co-conspirator.  We review the record to determine

            whether on  all the  evidence and reasonable  inferences from

            the evidence  a reasonable factfinder could  have found guilt

            beyond  a reasonable doubt.   United States v.  Dodd, 43 F.3d
                                          _____________     ____

            759, 762 (1st Cir. 1995).  The district court, sitting as the

            trier  of  fact,  heard   the  defendant,  in  tape  recorded

            telephone conversations with  an undercover drug  enforcement

            agent posing as  a buyer, provide the buyer  with information

            necessary to lead him  to the ultimate seller of  the heroin.

            Although the  defendant testified  that he was  suffering the

            effects of heroin withdrawal at  the time of the conversation

            and  did  not  know he  was  facilitating  a  drug deal,  the

            district  court found,  as  it  was  free  to  do,  that  the

                                         -2-

            defendant's testimony was not credible.  See United States v.
                                                     ___ _____________

            DiMarzo,  80  F.3d  656,  661  (1st  Cir.  1996)  (factfinder
            _______

            entitled to  reject defendant's testimonial  contradiction of

            government witness and his proffered innocent explanation for

            his conduct).  From  all the evidence the district  court was

            warranted  in  inferring that  the  defendant  was a  knowing

            participant in the drug transaction.

                      The  defendant  challenges  the   district  court's

            imposition of  a two-level upward adjustment  to his sentence

            for  obstruction of  justice, pursuant  to U.S.S.G.    3C1.1,

            based  on  a finding that the defendant had committed perjury

            during his  trial testimony.   The  district court  found the

            defendant's  testimony that  he  was unaware  that Young  had

            brought drugs  into Maine  not to  be credible  when compared

            with the tape recording  of the defendant's conversation with

            the  undercover  agent/buyer,  and  that  the  defendant  had

            deliberately testified  falsely to obtain an  acquittal.  The

            district court's finding  of untruthfulness, encompassing all

            the  elements  of perjury,  is supported  by the  record, see
                                                                      ___

            United States v. Rehal, 940 F.2d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1991), and we
            _____________    _____

            find no clear error.

                      The defendant also claims that he was entitled to a

            downward  adjustment  to  his  sentence  for   acceptance  of

            responsibility  pursuant  to  U.S.S.G.     3E1.1.    Only  in

            "extraordinary cases," however, will an adjustment be granted

                                         -3-

            for acceptance of responsibility when an enhancement has been

            given  for  obstruction  of   justice.    U.S.S.G.     3E1.1,

            Application Note 4.   The defendant has not shown  this to be

            an extraordinary case.   Moreover, the clear demonstration of

            acceptance of  responsibility  necessary for  this section to

            apply  requires from  the defendant  an authentic  showing of

            remorse, United States v. Bennett, 37 F.3d 687, 698 (1st Cir.
                     _____________    _______

            1994);  "[t]he  adjustment  is  not intended  to  apply  to a

            defendant who puts the  government to its burden of  proof at

            trial by denying the essential factual  elements of guilt, is

            convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse."

            U.S.S.G.   3E1.1, Application Note 2.  The district court had

            a plausible  basis for concluding that the  defendant had not

            accepted responsibility within the  meaning of the guideline.

            See United States v. Royer, 895 F.2d 28, 30 (1st Cir. 1990).
            ___ _____________    _____

                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________

                                         -4-