Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mejia-Gutierrez v. United States, 93-1292 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 93-1292 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 10, 1993
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: September 10, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 93-1292 LUIS F. MEJIA-GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, Respondent. The district court denied his request.
USCA1 Opinion









September 10, 1993
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________


No. 93-1292

LUIS F. MEJIA-GUTIERREZ,

Plaintiff, Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Respondent.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

____________________

Before

Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Luis F. Mejia-Gutierrez on brief pro se.
_______________________
Charles E. Fitzwilliam, United States Attorney, Edwin O. Vazquez,
______________________ _________________
Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
_______________________
Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.


____________________


____________________



















Per Curiam. On October 25, 1989, Luis Mejia-
___________

Gutierrez pled guilty to one count of bringing cocaine on

board an aircraft in violation of 21 U.S.C. 955. At

sentencing on January 25, 1990, the district court granted

Mejia-Gutierrez a two-level reduction in base offense level

for acceptance of responsibility, and sentenced him to 70

months in prison. 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. Mejia-Gutierrez

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

Mejia-Gutierrez's request for a sentence reduction under

amended 3E1.1.

Affirmed.
________





















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