United States v. Mankowski ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                             No. 96-4383
    ERIC MANKOWSKI,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                             No. 96-4410
    GENNARO PULICE, a/k/a Jerry,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
    Irene M. Keeley, District Judge.
    (CR-95-30)
    Submitted: February 28, 1997
    Decided: April 16, 1997
    Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    William E. Galloway, GALLOWAY & TAYLOR, Weirton, West
    Virginia; William C. Gallagher, CASSIDY, MYERS, COGAN, VOE-
    GELIN & TENNANT, L.C., Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appel-
    lants. William D. Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Paul T.
    Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Vir-
    ginia, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Gennaro Pulice appeals from his sentence imposed for violation of
    
    21 U.S.C. §§ 843
    (b), 846 (1994); 18 U.S.C.§§ 2, 894, 1952(a)(3)
    (1994). We affirm.
    Pulice contends that his prior conviction for contributing to the
    delinquency of a minor is sufficiently similar to the offense of Non-
    support that it should not have been used to determine his criminal
    history score under United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines
    Manual, § 4A1.2(c)(1) (Nov. 1995). We find that these two offenses
    are not similar and therefore find no error in the district court's con-
    sideration of the prior offense in calculating Pulice's criminal history
    score. Accordingly, we affirm.
    Eric Mankowski appeals from his sentence imposed for violation
    of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1), 844 (1994). We affirm.
    Mankowski contends that the district court violated his Sixth
    Amendment right to a jury trial by using conduct of which he had
    been acquitted in setting his offense level through use of the Guide-
    lines' relevant conduct provisions. Mankowski essentially relies on
    two Ninth Circuit cases to support his argument that an acquittal
    translates into a verdict of innocent and therefore renders the use of
    such conduct in the calculation of his offense level unconstitutional.
    These cases are United States v. Putra, 
    78 F.3d 1386
     (9th Cir. 1996),
    2
    and United States v. Watts, 
    67 F.3d 790
     (9th Cir. 1995). Both of these
    cases have recently been reversed by the Supreme Court. See United
    States v. Watts, ___ U.S. ___, 
    65 U.S.L.W. 3452
     (U.S. Jan. 6, 1997)
    (No. 95-1906). In Watts the Supreme Court held that a court may con-
    sider conduct of which a defendant has been acquitted in determining
    his offense level because an acquittal does not establish that a defen-
    dant is innocent of the charged offense, but rather that there was
    insufficient evidence to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
    We therefore affirm Mankowski's sentence.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
    tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-4383

Filed Date: 4/16/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021