United States v. Bernal

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: June 21, 1999
• Docket: 98-1849
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 98-1849

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

FELIPE BERNAL,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Lynch, Circuit Judge, Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

Felipe Bernal on brief pro se. Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega-Pacheco, Assistant United States Attorney, and Camille Velez-Rive, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

June 17, 1999

Per Curiam. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record and affirm the judgment of the district court denying the Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion of Felipe Bernal. First, we note that since defendant did not object to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge despite an adequate warning regarding the consequences of the failure to do so he has waived the right to appellate review. See Henley Drilling Co. v. McGee, 36 F.3d 143, 150-51 & n.19 (1st Cir. 1994); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603, 605 (1st Cir. 1980). In any event, we agree with the Report and Recommendation that the motion was meritless. The maximum term of imprisonment for each of the offenses to which defendant pleaded guilty was life imprisonment. See Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 395, 401, 404-10 (1991) (tracing the history of the federal drug enforcement penalty scheme and holding that 1002 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which increased the maximum punishment for large-scale drug offenses to life imprisonment, became effective on October 27, 1986). Also, it is well-settled that "consecutive sentences for a substantive drug offense and a conspiracy to commit such an offense are . . . permissible." United States v. Cerro, 775 F.2d 908, 910 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Wylie, 625 F.2d 1371, 1381 (9th Cir. 1980). Affirmed. See Local Rule 27.1.