December 9, 1994
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 94-1909
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
LUIS EDUARDO PUGLIESI,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Carmen C. Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
Miriam Ramos Grateroles on brief for appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Joseph J. Frattallone,
Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.
Per Curiam. Appellant Luis Eduardo Pugliesi appeals the
denial by the district court of his motion to compel the
government to perform its promise to file a motion for a
downward departure if appellant agreed to provide information
which did not prove to be false or misleading. We affirm.
Prior to entering into a plea agreement on November 16,
1993, Pugliesi was subject to a series of debriefings by the
government. During the course of the debriefings, Pugliesi
changed his story and admits to having provided false
information. However, he claims that the information he
provided as of the date of the agreement was truthful.
After signing the plea agreement, Pugliesi agreed to
participate in a polygraph examination on November 23, 1993.
After the completion of the examination, Pugliesi was
informed that, in the opinion of the examiner, he had
provided answers which were indicative of deception.
According to the testimony of his case agent, Pugliesi
thereupon admitted that he had lied during the polygraph
examination and that he had not "been completely truthful" in
the previous debriefings. At Pugliesi's subsequent
sentencing, the government refused to file a downward
departure motion.
The district court supportably found credible the case
agent's testimony that, on November 23, Pugliesi admitted
having lied when he provided information to the government at
and after entering the plea agreement. See United States v.
St. Cyr., 977 F.2d 698, 706 (1st Cir. 1992) ("In the
sentencing phase, credibility determinations lie within the
domain of the district court."). According to the terms of
the plea agreement,1 the government was thereby under no
obligation to recommend a downward departure at sentencing,
and its decision not to file such a motion was neither in bad
faith nor lacking in a rational basis. See United States v.
Catalucci, No. 93-2129, slip. op. (1st Cir: Sept. 27, 1994).
Affirmed.
1. The agreement states, in relevant part:
Should evidence of defendant's mendacity, and/or
misleading or incomplete replies surface after
defendant['s] change of plea, the United States
will not be bound to file any motions or make any
recommendations favorable to defendant at
sentencing.
-3-