United States v. Terreforte-Quidgley

First Circuit

United States v. Terreforte-Quidgley

123 F. App'x 14

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMarch 11, 2005

Docket04-2085

StatusPublished

This text of 123 F. App'x 14 (United States v. Terreforte-Quidgley) 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. Terreforte-Quidgley, 123 F. App'x 14 (1st Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Alexis Terreforte Quidgley appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 599 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. Supp.App. C, amend. 599 (2002) (amending U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4). We *15 agree with the district court’s determination that Amendment 599 does not apply to appellant’s sentence. Appellant’s additional arguments, which appear to be based on U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), were not presented to the district court and are therefore not properly before us. See United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 69 F.3d 1215, 1219 (1st Cir. 1995). In any event, we note that appellant did not receive a § 3C1.2 sentencing enhancement.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion for reduction of sentence. However, in accordance with the government’s request, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the government to seek dismissal of the charge brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e), as contemplated in the plea agreement.

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

PER CURIAM.

Alexis Terreforte Quidgley appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 599 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. Supp.App. C, amend. 599 (2002) (amending U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4). We *15 agree with the district court’s determination that Amendment 599 does not apply to appellant’s sentence. Appellant’s additional arguments, which appear to be based on U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), were not presented to the district court and are therefore not properly before us. See United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 69 F.3d 1215, 1219 (1st Cir. 1995). In any event, we note that appellant did not receive a § 3C1.2 sentencing enhancement.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion for reduction of sentence. However, in accordance with the government’s request, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the government to seek dismissal of the charge brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e), as contemplated in the plea agreement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 F. App'x 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-terreforte-quidgley-ca1-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack