United States v. Severino-Candelaria

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: May 30, 1996
• Docket: 96-1061
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

May 30, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________


No. 96-1061



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                             EMELIO SEVERINO-CANDELARIA,

                                     A/K/A JULIO,



                                Defendant, Appellant.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                  [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, Chief U.S. District Judge]
                                         _________________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Raymond E. Gillespie on brief for appellant.
            ____________________

            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and  Michael J. Pelgro,
            ________________                                _________________

        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.


____________________


____________________


Per Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed defendant's
                      __________



appellate arguments, and, finding no merit in them, we affirm



            the sentence imposed by the district court.



                 Contrary to  defendant's first argument,   both the form



            and the substance of the district court's findings adequately



            support  the  two-level  enhancement under  USSG    3B1.1(c).



            Specifically, the  formal requirement of 18  U.S.C.   3553(c)



            was  satisfied  by  the  district  court's  adoption  of  the



            unambiguous and  undisputed PSR.  That  report indicated that



            defendant committed  to and executed the sales by himself and



            through  others,  supplied  the  drugs,  and  supervised   or



            directed at least  one other person (e.g., "Anna"  and Mota),
                                                 ____



            so  that  defendant's  role   in  the  offense  was  properly



            characterized  as  supervisory  or managerial.    See  United
                                                              ___  ______



            States  v. Schrader,  56 F.3d  288, 293-94  (1st Cir.  1996);
            ______     ________



            United States v. Morillo, 8 F.3d 864, 872 (1st Cir. 1993).
            _____________    _______



                 Further, we find  no clear error in the district court's



            rejection of  defendant's claim for an  extra reduction under



            USSG    3E1.1(b)(2).  Defendant only  indicated a conditional



            agreement  to   plead  guilty  some  six   months  after  his



            arraignment and when the  government was already prepared for



            trial;  he  renounced  the agreement  that  was  subsequently



            negotiated;  and he  did not  enter his  plea until  some ten



            months after arraignment.  Those facts support the conclusion



            that defendant's  notification of intent to  plead guilty was


-3-



not  "timely" for the purpose  of   3E1.1(b)(2).   See United
                                                               ___ ______



            States v. Morillo, 8 F.3d 864, 872 (1st Cir. 1993). 
            ______    _______



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


-4-