Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. DeJesus Granada, 96-1294 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 96-1294 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: , __________________, Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Warren Vazquez and Nelson, _____________ ______________ ______, Perez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorneys, and Jose A. Quiles-, __________ ________________, Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.district court.
USCA1 Opinion









July 23, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 96-1294



UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

ALEJANDRO DE JESUS GRANADA,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Irma R. Valldejuli on brief for appellant. __________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Warren Vazquez and Nelson _____________ ______________ ______
Perez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorneys, and Jose A. Quiles- __________ ________________
Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee. ________


____________________


____________________

















Per Curiam. Alejandro De Jesus Granada appeals his __________

sentence on two grounds. We affirm.

1. Role in the offense. Appellant argues that the ___________________

district court erred in failing to grant his request for a

two-level reduction in the offense level based upon his minor

role in the offense, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3B1.2. The plea

agreement entered between appellant and the government

expressly provided that, beyond the adjustment for acceptance

of responsibility, "no further adjustments to the defendant's

base offense level shall be made." It might therefore be

argued that appellant waived his right to request an

adjustment for his role in the offense, but there is some

difference among the circuits on when and whether such

stipulations are binding on the district court and we have

not resolved this issue. Compare United States v. Isirov, _______ _____________ ______

996 F.2d 183, 186-87 (7th Cir. 1993), with United States v. ______________

Long, 77 F.3d 1060, 1061 (8th Cir. 1996). ____

In all events, Granada was convicted of importing a

specific shipment of heroin. He is the one who did the

importing and while there is some indication that someone

else furnished him with the drugs, there is almost nothing to

indicate that his role in this importation was minor. Given

that the burden was on Granada to show that he was entitled

to the downward adjustment, the district court did not err in

its conclusion that the adjustment was unwarranted.



-2-













2. Departure Pursuant to U.S.S.G. 5K2.0. ____________________________________________

Appellant contends that the district court erred in failing

to depart downward under U.S.S.G. 5K2.0, on account of his

substantial assistance to the government, notwithstanding

that the government did not move for a departure pursuant to

5K1.1. "It is by now axiomatic that a criminal defendant

cannot ground an appeal on a sentencing court's discretionary

decision not to depart below the guideline sentencing range."

United States v. Pierro, 32 F.3d 611, 619 (1st Cir. 1994). _____________ ______

In his brief, appellant does not argue that the

district court misunderstood its legal authority to depart.

The transcript of the sentencing hearing does not indicate

that the court suffered from such a misunderstanding.

Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the

sentencing court's discretionary decision not to depart.

3. Pro Se Motion to Supplement Appellate Record. _____________________________________________

Appellant filed a pro se motion with this court seeking to ___ __

supplement the record by adding a letter from a prison

psychologist. In his motion, Granada suggests that the letter

calls into question the validity of his guilty plea. The

letter was never before the district court. Nor has Granada

raised the issue of the validity of his guilty plea in

district court. "It is a bedrock rule that when a party has

not presented an argument to the district court, she may not





-3-













unveil it in the court of appeals." United States v. Slade, ______________ _____

980 F.2d 27, 30 (1st Cir. 1992).

Appellant's sentence is affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___

Appellant's pro se motion to supplement the record on appeal ___ __

is denied. ______











































-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