Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Nichols, 96-2306 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 96-2306 Visitors: 4
Filed: May 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: ____________________, and Boudin, Circuit Judge.Tina Schneider on brief for appellant., ______________, Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, F. Mark Terison and, _________________ _________________, Donald E. Clark, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for, ________________, appellee.
USCA1 Opinion









[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

_____________________


No. 96-2306

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

RONDA R. NICHOLS, A/K/A RONDA R. BURKE,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

ERRATA SHEET



The opinion of this court issued on April 8, 1997 is amended
as follows:

On cover sheet, the name of "[Hon. David M. Cohen, U.S.
Magistrate Judge]" should be changed to read "[Hon. D. Brock
Hornby, U.S. District Judge]."





































[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 96-2306

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

RONDA R. NICHOLS, A/K/A RONDA R. BURKE,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Boudin, Circuit Judge. _____________

____________________

Tina Schneider on brief for appellant. ______________
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, F. Mark Terison and _________________ _________________
Donald E. Clark, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for ________________
appellee.


____________________

April 8, 1997
____________________
















Per Curiam. Upon careful consideration of the briefs __________

and record, we conclude that defendant's sentence properly

was enhanced under U.S.S.G. 3A1.1(b). The district court's

findings adequately pointed to the victim's particular

vulnerability, including her advanced age and inability to

keep track of her finances, and to defendant's knowledge

thereof during the extended period of the offense. Those

findings were not clearly erroneous and sufficiently

supported the 3A1.1(b) enhancement. See United States v. ___ _____________

Feldman, 83 F.3d 9, 15-17 (1st Cir. 1996). _______

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___































-2-






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