[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1624
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
JOHN R. PAQUETTE,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
Richard D. Glovsky, Daniel S. Tarlow and Glovsky, Tarlow &
Milberg on Anders brief for appellant.
MARCH 4, 1997
Per Curiam. Pursuant to a written plea agreement,
defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). In exchange
for the plea, the government moved to withdraw an information
charging prior offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act,
18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1) (effectively recommending that the Act
not be applied); offered no opposition to a sentencing
decrease for defendant's acceptance of responsibility; and
recommended a sentence at the low end of the applicable
range. The court accepted the recommendation as to the Armed
Career Criminal Act, and decreased defendant's range three
levels for acceptance of responsibility. However, the court
also increased the range by four levels under USSG
2K2.1(b)(5), and sentenced defendant (within the applicable
range) to 120 months imprisonment, the statutory maximum for
the offense.
Defendant now appeals from the sentence. His
appellate counsel has submitted an Anders brief and a motion
to withdraw, asserting that there is no meritorious ground
for appeal, but suggesting that defendant may wish to
challenge the district court's application of USSG
2K2.1(b)(5). See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
(1967); Loc. R. 46.4(a)(4). Although counsel notified
defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief,
defendant hasnot filedabrief, andthe timeforfiling haspassed.
-2-
After a careful review of the record, we agree that
there is no meritorious ground for appeal. The plea
proceedings substantially conformed to the requirements of
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and we apprehend no error at sentencing.
We agree with counsel that there is no support in the case
law for challenging the district court's application of USSG
2K2.1(b)(5) to the facts presented in this case.
Appellant's conviction and sentence are summarily
affirmed; counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
-3-