United States v. Naranjo

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

November 18, 1993
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 93-1469 

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                LUIS EDUARDO NARANJO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                         Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
                                              ______________

                                 ____________________

            Luis Eduardo Naranjo on brief pro se.
            ____________________
            Edwin J.  Gale, United  States  Attorney,  and Zechariah  Chaffee,
            ______________                                 __________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

____________________

____________________

Per  Curiam.   On April  12,  1991, appellant  Luis
                      ___________

            Eduardo Naranjo was sentenced to 63 months in prison for drug

            offenses.    At  sentencing,  Naranjo  received  a  two-level

            reduction   in  base   offense   level  for   acceptance   of

            responsibility.   Effective  November  1,  1992,  the  United

            States Sentencing Commission  amended sentencing guideline   

            3E1.1 to  permit an  additional one-level  reduction in  base

            offense  level   for  persons  eligible  for   the  two-level

            reduction for acceptance  of responsibility.  Naranjo  sought

            to reduce  his sentence  pursuant to  the amended  guideline,

            claiming that the amendment should be applied  retroactively.

            The  district  court denied  his  request.   Because  we have

            decided  that the amendment  in question is  not retroactive,

            see DeSouza  v. United  States, 995 F.2d  323, 324  (1st Cir.
            ___________     ______________

            1993) (per curiam),  we affirm the district court's denial of

            Naranjo's  request for a  sentence reduction under  amended  

            3E1.1.

                      Affirmed.
                      _________