United States v. Gonzales, 1st Cir. (1993)
United States v. Gonzales, 1st Cir. (1993)
United States v. Gonzales, 1st Cir. (1993)
merit.
three assignments of
is long
the judgment
below.
I
I
First,
that
defendant-appellant
enhancement for
(Nov. 1992).
court's
The
Alberto
erred in imposing
obstruction of
justice.1
contention is jejune.
factfinding
in
these
Gonzales contends
a two-level sentence
See U.S.S.G.
___
We
precincts
3C1.1
review a sentencing
with
considerable
deference.
See,
___
v. Wheelwright,
___________
226, 228
918 F.2d
a matter
an acquaintance into
material to the
obstruction
evidence that
bearing false
Such scurrilous
clearly
warranting
See U.S.S.G.
___
constitute
case.
(similar).
deportment
level.
can
Cir. 1990)
attempted to coax
witness about
(1st
of
justice,
judge
found
"intentionally
(e.g., that
____
substances
explicitly, and
and
individual to
knowingly
law
supportably,
attempted
testify falsely in
during a
drug buy
demand that
to
when explaining
the
the
F.2d
1083, 1088
(1st
another
material matter
used
course of
cases).
persuade
illegally
in the
appellant
contraband
their official
judges,
that
court as to a
enforcement agents
bases for
We do
their
Lenn v. Portland
____
________
Cir. 1993)
(collecting
sentencing
knowingly"
in
judge's
this
case
use of
the
as the
phrase
functional
"intentionally and
equivalent
of an
of responsibility.
We do not agree.
for acceptance of
including downward
responsibility.
adjustments
___ F.3d ___, ___ (1st Cir. 1993) [No. 93-1388, slip op.
United States v.
______________
Bradley, 917
_______
F.2d 601,
606 (1st
at 16];
Cir. 1990).
____________________
2Appellant
also suggests that the act of subornation
occurred because he was suffering from opioid withdrawal.
That
suggestion has no credible support in the record.
We cannot
fault the district court for failing to accept sheer speculation
in place of hard proof.
3
to
defendant
the
defendant on such
of
appellate
`clearly demonstrates
review:
"Whether
recognition and
affirmative
clearly erroneous."
United States v. Royer, 895 F.2d 28, 29 (1st Cir. 1990) (citation
_____________
_____
omitted).
Here, the uphill battle is
for
appellant
to climb.
There
logical
inconsistency
accepting responsibility in
a timeous manner.
inconsistency.
Only
The
"extraordinary
cases"
qualify
following
an
U.S.S.G.
for
an
enhancement
acceptance-of-responsibility
for
obstruction
States v.
______
of
justice.
credit
See
___
also United
____ ______
Cir. 1993).
A defendant
thus, that
exception.
it
within the
narrow
confines of
the
judge
comes
discerned
extraordinary
"nothing
case
cannot scale
in
these heights.
this
required by
case
The
to
the guideline
make
district
it
the
application note
of responsibility
finding of
obstruction
of justice."
is fully supported by
the record.
Invoking
the
1989),
appellant
denied a section
says that
the
lower
court erroneously
on its perception
that
mislaid.
There is a
who
not
does
Perez-Franco is
____________
accept
responsibility
for
conduct
underlying
conviction
in
order
responsibility, see
___
properly
to
consider whether
genre.
found, in
for
acted
comment.
in
(n.1(a))
effect, that
of
court may
inconsistent
987 F.2d
at 878;
(Nov. 1992).
of error fizzles.
acceptance
mendaciously denies
manner
this case
offenses of
at 463, a
defendant who
accepting
court
has
conduct
3E1.1,
credit
relevant
U.S.S.G.
obtain
of such
belongs to
with
see also
___ ____
The district
the latter
III
III
Among
other
things,
purchasing, receiving,
convicted of
A
reduction
and possessing
a felony.
defendant charged
in his
possessed the
appellant
these
base offense
purposes or collection."
level
is
if he
"solely
U.S.S.G.
to
after being
statutes
challenged firearms
guilty
six handguns
See 18 U.S.C.
___
under
pled
entitled
can prove
to
that he
for lawful
sporting
to grant this
reduction.
The
Appellant
now
complains.
A
defendant
preponderance of the
adjustment
Cousens,
_______
sentencing
error.
F.2d 800,
court's
See id.
___ ___
2K2.1(b)(2).
802
of
See
___
(1st Cir.
findings of
accounts of
proving
fact
on this
to a downward
United States
_____________
1992).
why the
by
v.
We
review the
issue
for clear
record, including
handguns were
in his
dearth of corroborative
district
burden
appellant's changing
possession.
the
under section
942
bears
error in the
acting neither as a
sportsman nor
handguns.
as a
Hence,
collector in assembling
we uphold
the court's
a small
arsenal of
refusal to
grant the
requested reduction.
IV
IV
We need go
no further.3
Shortly
____________________
3Appellant's
bear discussion.
meritless and
do not