Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Prudencio Vanegas, 94-1969 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 94-1969 Visitors: 2
Filed: Apr. 13, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 94-1969 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. RAMON PRUDENCIO VANEGAS, Defendant, Appellant. See, e.g., United, ___ ____ ______ States v. Pighetti, 898 F.2d 3, 4 (1st Cir. This contention thus falters as well.
USCA1 Opinion




[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



____________________


No. 94-1969

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

RAMON PRUDENCIO VANEGAS,

Defendant, Appellant.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


[Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Frank D. Inserni on brief for appellant. ________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Warren Vazquez, Assistant _____________ ______________
United States Attorney, and Jos A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation _______________________
Counsel, on brief for appellee.


____________________

April 13, 1995
____________________




















Per Curiam. In April 1994, defendant Ramon Prudencio __________

Vanegas pled guilty to a charge of possessing, with intent to

distribute, over 100 kilograms of marijuana on board a vessel

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in

violation of 46 U.S.C. App. 1903(a). In August 1994, he

was sentenced to a prison term of 87 months. Throughout this

period, defendant (a 57-year-old citizen of Colombia)

suffered from a hearing impairment and a prostate

condition.1 Anticipating that his medical condition would

be a relevant factor at sentencing, he sought permission in

May 1994 to retain a physician to provide him with a complete

assessment thereof. This motion was denied, and the matter

was not thereafter pursued. Defendant now appeals, alleging

that the district court erred in denying this request. We

find no abuse of discretion and therefore affirm.

Defendant complains that the lack of a private medical

evaluation hampered his ability to argue for a reduced

sentence in light of his ailments.2 This contention falters

for at least two reasons. First, far from objecting at

____________________

1. The hearing impairment resulted in partial loss of
hearing. The prostate condition, according to defendant, was
diagnosed in a May 1994 prison medical report as benign
prostate hypertrophy (enlargement), which caused no major
pain or discomfort.

2. He similarly complains that the denial of his motion
prevented him from negotiating a more favorable plea
agreement with the government. It is difficult to understand
how, since the plea agreement was completed several weeks
before his motion was filed.

-2-













sentencing to the state of the medical evidence, defense

counsel acknowledged that the matter had been "adequately

addressed." Second, the district court ended up agreeing to

a two-level downward departure on account of defendant's

health and age (going beyond the government's recommendation

for a one-level departure in this regard). See U.S.S.G. ___

5H1.1, 5H1.4.3 It also recommended that defendant be

confined at an institution equipped with appropriate

treatment facilities. By these and other actions,4 the

court evinced an obvious appreciation of defendant's medical

situation.

Defendant also suggests that his hearing impairment

prevented him from fully understanding what transpired at

sentencing. Yet the district court was aware of this

condition, having advised the interpreter at the outset to

speak firmly since "defendant is hard of hearing."


____________________

3. Ordinarily, a defendant who receives the benefit of a
downward departure cannot appeal on the ground that the
departure was not sufficiently liberal. See, e.g., United ___ ____ ______
States v. Pighetti, 898 F.2d 3, 4 (1st Cir. 1990). Here, ______ ________
however, defendant does not appeal his sentence per se, but ______
appeals the denial of his motion for appointment of a
physician. Since the outcome is the same in any event, we
assume--but do not decide--that we have appellate
jurisdiction.

4. Shortly after entering his guilty plea, defendant had
filed a "motion requesting medical treatment" in which he
complained that prison authorities had not properly attended
to his medical needs. The court allowed the motion and
ordered that defendant be provided with whatever treatment
"his condition may require."

-3-













Defendant's replies to the court's inquiries were responsive

in nature, reflecting no difficulties in comprehension. And

neither defendant nor counsel voiced any complaint in this

regard. This contention thus falters as well.

Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. ____________________________











































-4-






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