United States v. Picardi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: October 16, 1997
• Docket: 97-1366
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


No. 97-1366



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                      PASQUALE MUNAFO, A/K/A PAT, A/K/A FAT PAT,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            John Wall on brief for appellant.
            _________

            Donald K. Stern, United  States Attorney, James  C. Rehnquist  and
            _______________                           ___________________

        Ernest S.  Dinisco, Assistant  United States  Attorneys, on  brief for
        __________________

        appellee.


____________________



                                   October 14, 1997

                                 ____________________



Per Curiam.   Upon careful review, we perceive  no clear
                 __________



            error in the district court's  determination of the amount of



            loss.    Further,  no improper  double  counting  occurred in



            adjusting appellant's  sentence both for  his managerial role



            in the offense under U.S.S.G.    3B1.1(b), as well as for his



            business  of receiving  and  selling  stolen  property  under



            U.S.S.G.   2B1.1(b)(4)(B).  See  United States v. Reeves,  83
                                        ___  _____________    ______



            F.3d 203, 208 (8th Cir. 1996).



                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___


-2-