USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1860
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
JOSE BONILLA-ROMERO,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
Rafael Gonzalez Velez and Rafael Gonzalez Velez Law Office on
______________________ ___________________________________
brief for appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa,
______________ _______________________
Senior Litigation Counsel, Edwin O. Vazquez, Assistant United States
________________
Attorney, and Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, on
_________________
brief for appellee.
____________________
MARCH 27, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. Appellant Jose Bonilla-Romero appeals
___________
from the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw
his guilty plea to one count of aiding and abetting his co-
defendants in knowingly, intentionally, and unlawfully
possessing with intent to distribute cocaine and from the
court's denial of his request for an acceptance of
responsibility reduction at sentencing. We affirm.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty
plea. See United States v. Isom, 85 F.3d 831, 834 (1st Cir.
___ _____________ ____
1996) (describing our standard of review and the factors we
consider in reviewing the denial of a motion to withdraw a
guilty plea). Bonilla has not disputed that he agreed to
plead guilty in a written plea agreement and that he pled
guilty under oath at a plea hearing which complied fully with
the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. His assertion of
innocence, made seven weeks after his guilty plea, was
clearly belated. The testimony of one co-defendant suggested
a possible defense, but was directly contradicted by the
testimony of a different co-defendant, whom the district
court obviously credited. See United States v. Wicker, 80
___ _____________ ______
F.3d 263, 268 (8th Cir. 1996) (the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty
plea where the court had assessed the defendant's credibility
negatively); United States v. Caban, 962 F.2d 646, 650 (7th
_____________ _____
-2-
Cir. 1992) ("Because credibility determinations are left to
the sound discretion of the trial court, it seems unlikely
that the district court abused its discretion by rejecting
Caban's motion to withdraw his plea which was based upon a
version of events that the court did not find credible.").
Since Bonilla protested his innocence even at
sentencing, the district court did not err in declining to
grant him the requested acceptance of responsibility
reduction. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, 3E1.1,
___
comment. (n.3) (1995) (evidence that a defendant has accepted
responsibility may be outweighed by inconsistent conduct; a
defendant who has pled guilty is not entitled to an
acceptance of responsibility reduction "as a matter of
right"); United States v. Bradley, 917 F.2d 601, 606 (1st
______________ _______
Cir. 1990) (affirming the denial of an acceptance of
responsibility adjustment where the defendant had tried to
minimize his participation in the crime "to the bitter end").
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
___________________________________________________
See Loc. R. 27.1.
_________________
-3-
