<head>
<title>USCA1 Opinion</title>
<style type="text/css" media="screen, projection, print">
<!--
@import url(/css/dflt_styles.css);
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p align=center>
</p><br>
<pre> [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] <br> United States Court of Appeals <br> For the First Circuit <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>Nos. 98-1311 <br> 98-2219 <br> <br> UNITED STATES, <br> <br> Appellee, <br> <br> v. <br> <br> FELIX J. GONZALEZ-DEL-VALLE, <br> <br> Defendant, Appellant. <br> <br> <br> <br> APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT <br> <br> FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO <br> <br> [Hon. Daniel R. Domnguez, U.S. District Judge] <br> <br> <br> <br> Before <br> <br> Selya, Boudin and Lynch, <br> Circuit Judges. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> J. Whitfield Larrabee and Rafael Anglada-Lopez on briefs for <br>appellant. <br> Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega Pacheco, <br>Assistant United States Attorney, Jose A. Ruiz-Santiago, Assistant <br>United States Attorney, and Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant United <br>States Attorney, on briefs for appellee. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>June 10, 1999 <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> Per Curiam. Defendant-appellant Felix J. Gonzalez <br> del Valle appeals from the district court's determination that <br> no excess time was served on previous federal sentences and its <br> denial of Gonzalez' request that his sentence be reduced <br> (Appeal No. 98-2219). We have carefully reviewed the record, <br> including the documentation of Gonzalez' prior federal <br> sentences. We conclude that the district court did not err in <br> declining to modify Gonzalez' sentence. <br> On appeal, Gonzalez argues that he is entitled to <br> thirteen months' credit for time served in excess of the <br> sentence imposed in Case No. 88-009. This is a new argument, <br> not raised before the district court. Therefore, the plain <br> error standard of review applies. See United States v. Olivier- <br> Diaz, 13 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1993). "Where the error that <br> defendant asserts on appeal depends upon a factual finding the <br> defendant neglected to ask the district court to make, the <br> error cannot be 'clear' or 'obvious' unless the desired factual <br> finding is the only one rationally supported by the record <br> below." Id. That standard is not met here. <br> Gonzalez claims that his present sentence should be <br> reduced by four months for time that he spent in a half-way <br> house following his release on parole. The record reveals, <br> however, that it was a condition of Gonzalez' parole that he <br> spend the first four months of supervision residing at a half- <br> way house. The governing statute specifically authorized such <br> a condition. See 18 U.S.C. 4209(c)(1). <br> Gonzalez also claims entitlement to nine months' <br> credit for time that lapsed between the execution of the parole <br> warrant and the revocation of his parole. No excess time was <br> served, however. The record shows that although the actual <br> revocation did not occur until September 1993, the total time <br> to be served following revocation of parole was calculated <br> starting from December 10, 1992, the date that the parole <br> warrant was executed. Gonzalez' contention that his due <br> process rights were violated because a revocation hearing was <br> not held in a timely manner, even if proved, would not entitle <br> him to receive credit with respect to the sentence he is <br> presently serving. The harm, if any, occurred in connection <br> with Case No. 88-009, not this case. <br> Gonzalez' sentence is affirmed. See Loc.R. 27.1. <br> <br></pre>
</body>
</html>
