Filed: Jun. 18, 2001
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: Those defendants were arrested in, the live impact area of the base, and their protests, appellants, say, were therefore more disruptive. The point is that the, district court's stated objective was to put an end to, protesters' taking the law into their own hands.
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 01-1780 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. ALFRED SHARPTON, Defendant, Appellant. No. 01-1781 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. ADOLFO CARRIÓN, Defendant, Appellant. No. 01-1782 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. ROBERTO RAMÍREZ, Defendant, Appellant. No. 01-1783 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. JOSÉ RIVERA, Defendant, Appellant. ERRATA The opinion of this court, issued June 14, 2001, should be amended as follows: On page 9, footnote 6, delete the first paragraph and insert the following paragraph in its place: "The appellants further object that the district court acted plainly unreasonably by ignoring differences between their offense conduct and the offense conduct of defendants in the proceedings of the prior day. Those defendants were arrested in the live impact area of the base, and their protests, appellants say, were therefore more disruptive. We do not find the uniform treatment to be plainly unreasonable. The point is that the district court's stated objective was to put an end to protesters' taking the law into their own hands. There is nothing plainly unreasonable about that objective. And that objective does not require distinguishing among defendants according to the particular manner in which they took the law into their own hands."