January 20, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 93-1735
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
THOMAS F. KNOWLTON,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge.
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Arlene C. Halliday on brief for appellant.
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and Michael M.
DuBose, Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion to Dismiss
Appeal for appellee.
Per Curiam. The government has moved for summary
disposition of this appeal under Loc. R. 27.1. We agree that
there is no substantial issue presented, and we affirm the
judgment below.
Defendant pleaded guilty to a one-count indictment
charging possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Under
U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(2), his base offense level was properly
calculated at Level 24 "if [he] had at least two prior felony
convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled
substance offense." The presentence report ("PSI") listed
two such convictions -- a drug offense and a burglary of a
dwelling. Defendant initially objected to the
characterization of the burglary as a crime of violence and
its use for sentence enhancement purposes. Defense counsel
later withdrew these objections, however, and with
defendant's approval, conceded the base offense level of 24.
Defendant now attempts to reverse the effect of his
voluntary concession by arguing that the court committed
plain error in omitting from its findings of fact an express
citation to the PSI paragraph which listed the burglary
conviction. The argument erroneously equates the absence of
a numerical citation with a failure to make factual findings.
The court specifically found the relevant fact, that
-2-
defendant had two prior qualifying convictions. It relied
upon the defendant's concession, expressly reiterating among
its written findings that defendant had withdrawn his
objections to considering the burglary for the purpose of
sentence enhancement. In addition, the court's judgment
adopted the factual findings of the PSI. "As a general rule a
trial court lawfully may make implicit findings with regard
to sentencing matters, incorporating by reference suitably
detailed suggestions limned in the PSI Report or advanced by
a party." United States v. Tavano, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS
33879, at *18 (1st Cir. Dec. 29, 1993) (citing cases). No
particular citation form is required.
Accordingly, we grant the government's motion under
Loc. R. 27.1 and affirm the judgment below.
-3-