-
USCA1 Opinion
July 1, 1992 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
____________________
No. 92-1489
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
JOSE ANTONIO GONZALEZ,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
Robert A. Levine on brief for appellant.
________________
Richard S. Cohen, United States Attorney, Jonathan A. Toof,
__________________ _________________
Assistant United States Attorney, and Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant
_____________________
United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Defendant pled guilty to (1)
___________
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and
(2) use of a person under eighteen to distribute and to aid
and abet the possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21
U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 846. He received a fifty-one month
sentence, the lowest sentence under the applicable guideline.
On appeal, defendant raises one issue -- that his asserted
youthful appearance and potential for victimization in prison
was a ground warranting a downward sentencing departure.
Defendant was nineteen when he committed the drug
offenses and approximately two months short of his twentieth
birthday when he was sentenced. The prosecutor acknowledged
at sentencing that defendant "obviously . . . is a youthful
looking person." According to the presentence report,
defendant is 5'10" tall and weighs 125 pounds.
Relying on two second circuit cases, United States
_____________
v. Gonazalez, 945 F.2d 525 (2d Cir. 1991) (downward departure
_________
for 19-year-old defendant who looked 14 or 15 and had a
"feminine cast to his face and a softness of features which
will make him prey to long-term criminals" upheld); United
______
States v. Lara, 905 F.2d 599 (2d Cir. 1990) (upholding
______ ____
downward departure because defendant's youthful appearance
(was 22, but looked 16) and bisexual orientation had rendered
him extremely vulnerable to physical attack and prison
officials had been unable to protect him other than by
-2-
placing him in solitary confinement), defendant argues on
appeal, as he did below, that defendant's youthful appearance
rendered him particularly vulnerable to victimization in
prison, that this alleged vulnerability was a circumstance of
a kind or to a degree not adequately considered by the
sentencing commission, and that hence a downward departure
was warranted.
Defendant acknowledges our repeated statement that
ordinarily a district court's refusal to depart is not
appealable. See United States v. Hilton, 946 F.2d 955, 957
___ ______________ ______
(1st Cir. 1991) and cases collected therein. He seeks to
come within an exception permitting review when the court's
decision not to depart is based on the mistaken view that it
lacked the legal authority to depart. Id.
___
Our review of the record convinces us that the
district court found no need to address the legal question
whether youthful appearance and potential for victimization
could ever be proper grounds for departure because it
concluded as a factual matter that defendant was not
unusually vulnerable to attack. The court stated as follows:
I . . . find that [defendant] is not
by virtue of his appearance uniquely
subject to victimization in prison more
than average 19-year-olds.
. . .
I decline to depart from the
guideline range. I'm not persuaded that
[defendant] . . . is so uniquely likely
-3-
to be victimized in prison that a
downward adjustment is called for.
Defendant regards these remarks as ambiguous,
calling for a remand, but we do not. The district court was
clearly appraised of defendant's legal position through
defendant's citation to the Second Circuit cases, but found,
in the case before him, no unusual vulnerability. We have no
basis to disturb the factual finding.
The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to First
Circuit Rule 27.1.
-4-
Document Info
Docket Number: 92-1489
Filed Date: 7/1/1992
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/21/2015