United States v. Hernandez Coplin

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

October 19, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 95-1258 



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                               RAMON HERNANDEZ COPLIN,



                                Defendant, Appellant.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Benicio  Sanchez   Rivera,  Federal  Public  Defender,  and  Laura
            _________________________                                    _____

        Maldonado Rodriguez,  Assistant Federal Public Defender,  on brief for
        ___________________

        appellant.

            Guillermo  Gil,  United States  Attorney,  Edwin  O.  Vazquez  and
            ______________                             __________________

        Nelson  Perez-Sosa, Assistant  United States  Attorneys, on  brief for
        __________________

        appellee.


____________________


____________________



Per   Curiam.    We  reject  appellant's  arguments
                      ____________



            essentially  for the  reasons explained  in United  States v.
                                                        ______________



            Garafano,  61 F.3d 113, 116-17 (1st Cir. 1995).  In remanding
            ________



            for "resentencing on the premise that the point of  departure



            is  a  combined  offense  level  of  13,"  United  States  v.
                                                       ______________



            Hernandez-Coplin, 24 F.3d 312,  320 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,
            ________________                                ____________



            115 S. Ct.  378 (1994),  we permitted the  district court  to



            forego holding a new sentencing  hearing, for we stated  that



            "[r]esentencing  in  this  instance  requires  no  additional



            evidence  and is only a small administrative burden."  Id. at
                                                                   ___



            320.    We see  no  unfairness  or  violation of  appellant's



            constitutional rights in our approach.   Appellant had a full



            opportunity to present mitigating evidence and arguments when



            he  was initially  sentenced.   The technical  nature of  our



            remand did not change the nature of the  information relevant



            to  sentencing  or  warrant  affording  defendant   a  second



            opportunity to repeat, or enlarge  upon, what he had  earlier



            presented.



                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________


-2-