Court Opinion

ID: 2965031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:22.665438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:04.591404
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1033

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                          DAVID RIVERA, A/K/A KENNETH BAKER,
                               A/K/A CHRISTOPHER TOLAN,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                         __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            Robert A. Strumwasser on brief for appellant.
            _____________________
            Sheldon  Whitehouse,   United  States  Attorney,   on  brief   for
            ___________________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  December 10, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and
                 __________

            record, we find no reason to overturn defendant's sentence.  

                 Defendant  did not  alert  the  district  court  to  any

            alleged  breach  of the  plea  agreement,  and so  we  review

            defendant's  appellate allegation for  plain error only.   No

            plain  error appears.  Under  the written plea agreement, the

            government's  obligation  not  to  oppose  the  decrease  for

            acceptance  of responsibility  was  conditional upon  whether

            defendant "truthfully admits his involvement  in the criminal

            conduct to which  he is pleading guilty," and  the government

            did  not  plainly  breach that  conditional  obligation.   We

            reject defendant's argument  that the plea colloquy  made the

            government's  obligation unconditional;  the  change of  plea

            transcript,  read as a whole, convinces  us that the district

            court  adequately  alerted  defendant  that his  truthfulness

            would be a continuing question at sentencing.

                 The district  court  properly refused  the decrease  for

            acceptance of responsibility based on its negative assessment

            of  defendant's credibility and candor and its interpretation

            of   defendant's  ambiguous,   rationalized,  and   qualified

            statements  purporting  to  accept   responsibility  for  the

            instant offense.   See  United States  v. Ocasio-Rivera,  991
                               ___  _____________     _____________

            F.2d  1, 5 (1st  Cir. 1993).   We will not  second-guess that

            assessment  and  interpretation.    Contrary  to  defendant's

            arguments,  it  does  not  appear  that  the  district  court

                                         -2-

            considered  impermissible  factors  or  engaged  in  improper

            speculation in that regard.   In any event, we agree with the

            district   court   that   defendant's   statements  did   not

            demonstrate a clear acceptance of responsibility.

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

                                         -3-