United States v. Raines

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: April 3, 1997
• Docket: 96-1755
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


No. 96-1755



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                  JAMES OTIS RAINES,



                                Defendant, Appellant.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________



                                 ____________________



            Gordon R. Blakeney, Jr. on brief for appellant.
            _______________________

            Jay P. McCloskey, United  States Attorney, James  L. McCarthy  and
            ________________                           __________________

        Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for
        _____________________

        appellee.


____________________



                                    March 25, 1997

                                 ____________________



Per  Curiam.   Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and
                 ___________



            record,  we  conclude that  defendant's  plea  should not  be



            vacated.   The  district  court told  defendant  that he  was



            "subject to  a term of imprisonment which  is a minimum of 15



            years."   Even though the  district court did  not state that



            the  minimum sentence  was  "mandatory," that  slip does  not



            entitle  defendant to  relief  in the  circumstances of  this



            case.



                 Defendant offers  no  plausible reason  for his  belated



            attempt to change his  plea; he makes no claim  of innocence;



            and there is  nothing legally  suspect about the  plea.   The



            proceedings  as  a  whole suggest  that  defendant reasonably



            should have  understood, and  did understand,  the sentencing



            implications of his plea.  See United States v. Lopez-Pineda,
                                       ___ _____________    ____________



            55 F.3d 693, 696 (1st Cir. 1995). 



                 We   also  find  no   merit  in  defendant's  contention



            regarding an  enhancement for  obstruction of justice.   That



            enhancement  had  no bearing  on  the  armed career  criminal



            sentence   ultimately   imposed   here   under   U.S.S.G.    



            4B1.4(b)(3).  See United States v. Ruiz-Garcia, 886 F.2d 474,
                          ___ _____________    ___________



            476 (1st Cir. 1989).



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


-2-