United States v. Richard Fournier

First Circuit

United States v. Richard Fournier

361 F.3d 42, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 5001, 2004 WL 513798

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMarch 17, 2004

DocketDocket 03-1864

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 361 F.3d 42 (United States v. Richard Fournier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Richard Fournier, 361 F.3d 42, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 5001, 2004 WL 513798 (1st Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Richard Fournier pled guilty to one count of oxycodone distribution and one count of methamphetamine distribution, both in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). He appeals from his sentence on grounds that the sentencing court erred (1) in increasing his base offense level by two levels for obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines and (2) in refusing to reward him with a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to § 3E1.1 of the Guidelines.

Fournier contends that the district court should have made a particularized finding as to whether he had the specific intent to obstruct justice, citing United States v. Reed, 49 F.3d 895, 900-01 (2d Cir.1995). We need not decide whether there must be a specific finding that Four-nier had a specific intent to obstruct justice, as the evidence here clearly supports the district court’s ultimate finding that Fournier intended to obstruct justice as defined by the Guidelines. United States v. Picanso, 333 F.3d 21, 24 (1st Cir.2003). The record amply shows that he violated multiple bail conditions in an attempt to flee and obstruct justice. Specifically, he (1) left his sister’s home with all of his personal belongings without the permission of the Probation Office; (2) cut off his electronic monitoring bracelet; (3) attempted to dye his hair to change his *44 appearance; and (4) was caught and arrested by law enforcement while driving a vehicle packed with his personal belongings.

Likewise, we find no merit in Four-nier’s second basis for appeal. Given that “conduct resulting in an enhancement [for obstruction of justice] ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct,” see USSG § 3E1.1 app. note 4, and that at the same time Fournier has not shown any “extraordinary circumstances” to merit the reduction, see id., we find no problem with the district court’s sentencing decision.

Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Richard Fournier pled guilty to one count of oxycodone distribution and one count of methamphetamine distribution, both in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). He appeals from his sentence on grounds that the sentencing court erred (1) in increasing his base offense level by two levels for obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines and (2) in refusing to reward him with a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to § 3E1.1 of the Guidelines.

Fournier contends that the district court should have made a particularized finding as to whether he had the specific intent to obstruct justice, citing United States v. Reed, 49 F.3d 895, 900-01 (2d Cir.1995). We need not decide whether there must be a specific finding that Four-nier had a specific intent to obstruct justice, as the evidence here clearly supports the district court’s ultimate finding that Fournier intended to obstruct justice as defined by the Guidelines. United States v. Picanso, 333 F.3d 21, 24 (1st Cir.2003). The record amply shows that he violated multiple bail conditions in an attempt to flee and obstruct justice. Specifically, he (1) left his sister’s home with all of his personal belongings without the permission of the Probation Office; (2) cut off his electronic monitoring bracelet; (3) attempted to dye his hair to change his *44 appearance; and (4) was caught and arrested by law enforcement while driving a vehicle packed with his personal belongings.

Likewise, we find no merit in Four-nier’s second basis for appeal. Given that “conduct resulting in an enhancement [for obstruction of justice] ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct,” see USSG § 3E1.1 app. note 4, and that at the same time Fournier has not shown any “extraordinary circumstances” to merit the reduction, see id., we find no problem with the district court’s sentencing decision.

Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 F.3d 42, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 5001, 2004 WL 513798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-richard-fournier-ca1-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack