Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Jaramillo, 93-1289 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 93-1289 Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 05, 1993
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: October 5, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 93-1289 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. HERNANDO DUQUE JARAMILLO, Defendant, Appellant. __________________ __________________ Per Curiam. The district court denied his request.
USCA1 Opinion









October 5, 1993
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________


No. 93-1289




UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

HERNANDO DUQUE JARAMILLO,

Defendant, Appellant.


__________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


[Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

___________________

Before

Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________

___________________

Hernando Duque Jaramillo, on brief pro se.
________________________
Charles E. Fitzwilliam, United States Attorney, Jose A.
_______________________ ________
Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Warren Vazquez,
_______________ ______________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.



__________________

__________________


















Per Curiam. On January 16, 1990, appellant
___________

Hernando Duque-Jaramillo was sentenced to 60 months in prison

for drug offenses. At sentencing, Duque-Jaramillo received a

two-level reduction in base offense level for acceptance of

responsibility. Effective November 1, 1992, the United

States Sentencing Commission amended sentencing guideline

3E1.1 to permit an additional one-level reduction in base

offense level for persons eligible for the two-level

reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Duque-Jaramillo

sought to reduce his sentence pursuant to the amended

guideline, claiming that the amendment should be applied

retroactively. The district court denied his request.

Because we have decided that the amendment in question is not

retroactive, see DeSouza v. United States, 995 F.2d 323, 324
___________ ______________

(1st Cir. 1993), we affirm the district court's denial of

Duque-Jaramillo's request for a sentence reduction under

amended 3E1.1.

Affirmed.
_________

















-2-







Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer