Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Vazquez-Cardona, 97-1657 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 97-1657 Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 13, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Lynch and Lipez, Circuit Judges.Gabriel Hern ndez-Rivera, by appointment of the Court, for, appellant. Defendant-, appellant argues on appeal that the sentence was in error in that, he was a minor participant and should therefore have been given a, two point reduction in his Base Offense Level.
USCA1 Opinion


       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]


United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
____________________

No. 97-1657

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

COLLIER VAZQUEZ-CARDONA, A/K/A CHINCO,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Jos‚ Antonio Fust‚, U.S. District Judge]

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,

Lynch and Lipez, Circuit Judges.

_____________________

Gabriel Hern ndez-Rivera, by appointment of the Court, for
appellant.
Grace Chung Becker, Trial Attorney, Narcotic and Dangerous
Drug Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, with
whom James K. Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, and Theresa M.B. Van Vliet,
Chief, Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section, Criminal Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, were on brief, for appellee.



____________________

November 10, 1998
____________________ Per Curiam. This is an appeal from a sentence imposed
after defendant pled guilty pursuant to an agreement. Defendant-
appellant argues on appeal that the sentence was in error in that
he was a minor participant and should therefore have been given a
two point reduction in his Base Offense Level.
Assuming dubitante that there is any jurisdiction over
this appeal in light of defendant's agreement that the Base Offense
Level would be 36 and he would be entitled to no other reduction
than the three level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility,
we nonetheless affirm. There is adequate evidence that the
defendant was not a minor participant.
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