USCA1 Opinion
February 17, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1875
UNITED STATES,
Appellant,
v.
ROBERT PALEO,
Defendant - Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________
_____________________
Carole S. Schwartz, Assistant United States Attorney, with
___________________
whom Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for
_______________
appellant.
Mark G. Miliotis, with whom Miliotis & McQuade, was on brief
________________ __________________
for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. The United States appeals the district
Per Curiam
___________
court's refusal to impose a fifteen-year mandatory sentence under
the Armed Career Criminal Act, ("ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. 924(e).
In March 1990, appellee Robert Paleo pled guilty to a
one-count indictment charging him with being a felon in
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1).
Because Paleo had a prior criminal record, the government
entreated the district court to sentence Paleo to the fifteen-
year mandatory sentence under the ACCA. In response, Paleo
challenged the constitutionality of his prior state court
convictions that formed the basis of the government's requested
sentence under the ACCA. In support of his challenge, Paleo
submitted an affidavit sworn to by himself, stating that he had
been denied counsel during critical stages of two of his four
prior convictions. The affidavit was supported by several
deficiencies in the state records.
The district court allowed the challenge, and found
that Paleo had been denied counsel at two of his four prior
convictions. Accordingly, the district court denied the
government's request for the imposition of the fifteen-year
sentence under the ACCA, and instead imposed a sentence of 21
months' incarceration and two years of supervised release, the
maximum sentence allowed under the Sentencing Guidelines. The
government now appeals, claiming 1) that the district court erred
as a matter of law in ruling with respect to Paleo's prior
convictions, and 2) that the district court's findings of fact
regarding Paleo's denial of his right of counsel during his prior
convictions were clearly erroneous.
Having carefully reviewed the district court's opinion,
and finding no abuse of discretion or clear error, we reject the
government's arguments, and affirm.
Affirmed.
________
-3-
