Professional Documents
Culture Documents
U.S.A v. Carrasquillo-Ramos, 1st Cir. (1992)
U.S.A v. Carrasquillo-Ramos, 1st Cir. (1992)
U.S.A v. Carrasquillo-Ramos, 1st Cir. (1992)
____________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 92-1030
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
EVARISTO CARRASQUILLO-RAMOS,
Defendant, Appellant.
___________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. H ctor M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
Skinner,* District Judge.
______________
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
*
out of
Because
find that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we
affirm.
crimes.1
statements of
officer.
know I
At his
did wrong
repentant,
and I
After
the
sentencing hearing,
and besides
trial,
from the
made
appellant also
having done
ask forgiveness
appellant
it
stated "I
wrong, I'm
court."
very
Appellant
contends
that
these
statements
acceptance of responsibility.
sentenced
and
him to 48 months
78
months
concurrently.
demonstrate
The district
the
imprisonment on counts
imprisonment
on
count
required
three,
to
run
downward
United
adjustment is
with Application
States
acceptance of
consistent
Sentencing
Guideline
responsibility.
3E1.1,
Note 2
of
pertaining
to
that "[t]his
puts the
____________________
government
to
its
burden of
proof
at
trial
by denying
the
that
in
"rare situations"
adjustment
defendant
may
qualify
for
the
because his
Appellant
codefendants threatened
contends
that
untimely admissions.
this
duress
him and
excuses
his family.
his
otherwise
downward adjustment.
We
review the
district court's
finding in
this case
(citing
comment).
United
States
We therefore
1990).
Sentencing
will reverse
Guideline
the
3E1.1
finding only
if it
we cannot
conclude
The
district
court
had
the
opportunity
to
assess
See id.
___ __
-3-
threats, in the
Due to his
assessment
responsibility at
merely expressed
which expressly
found that
appellant was
the
the
lack
of
any
a timely
the district
judge committed
acceptance
of the Sentencing
acceptance of responsibility,
pre-trial
clear error
of
Guidelines
we cannot
say
in refusing
to
-4-