Court Opinion

ID: 2964102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:31.087494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:33.180865
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 5, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1014

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 JOSEPH F. ALBANESE,

                                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

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Randy Olen and John M. Cicilline on brief for appellant.
            __________     _________________
            Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Richard W. Rose,
            __________________                              _______________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam  After careful review of  the briefs and
                      __________

            record,  we  find  no clear  error  in  the district  court's

            Sentencing Guidelines calculation.

                      Specifically,  the  district court's  determination

            that defendant was not entitled to a two-level reduction  for

            acceptance of responsibility is based  on a plausible view of

            the  circumstances.     We  will  not   reweigh  the  factors

            considered by the district court; nor can we say as a  matter

            of  law  that  defendant's  letter  to  the  victim  was  not

            threatening   and   inconsistent   with  an   acceptance   of

            responsibility  as contemplated  by  U.S.S.G.    3E1.1.   See
                                                                      ___

            United States v. Royer, 895 F.2d 28, 29 (1st Cir. 1990).
            _____________    _____

                      Next,  considering both  the victim's  age  and the

            circumstances of  defendant's second, repeat theft  from her,

            there  is   sufficient  support  for  the   district  court's

            determination  that  a two-level  increase  for  the victim's

            vulnerability was warranted.  See U.S.S.G.   3A1.1(b); United
                                          ___                      ______

            States v. Feldman, No.  95-1900, slip op. at 11-16  (1st Cir.
            ______    _______

            April 26, 1996); cf. United States v. Rowe, 999 F.2d 14,  16-
                             __  _____________    ____

            17 (1st Cir. 1993).

                      Finally,  as defendant  committed the  thefts under

            the  guise of his work as an investment advisor purporting to

            assist  the victim, there is  no clear error  in the district

            court's  imposition  of a  two-level  increase  for abuse  of

            defendant's position of trust.  See U.S.S.G.    3B1.3; United
                                            ___                    ______

            States v. Tardiff, 969 F.2d 1283, 1289 (1st Cir. 1992).
            ______    _______

                                         -3-

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

                                         -4-