United States v. Lafond

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 98-1945 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. PHILLIP A. LAFOND, 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, Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lipez, Circuit Judge. Roderick B. O'Connor, by appointment of the court, on brief for appellant. Margaret E. Curran, United States Attorney, Donald C. Lockhart and Kenneth P. Madden, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for the United States. September 21, 1999 Per Curiam. In this criminal appeal, the defendant (who did not move to withdraw his plea in the district court) asks us to set aside his conviction and the guilty plea upon which it was premised. He claims that he "fail[ed] to understand that the conduct of others could be imputed to him" in calculating his guideline sentencing range, and that, therefore, his guilty plea was not knowing and intelligently made. Appellant's Brief at 6. In our view, this claim is no more than a claim that the defendant received a harsher sentence than he had anticipated. But the record makes manifest that the appellant had ample warning. His assertion to the contrary is flatly contradicted both by the relevant provisions of the plea agreement and by the painstaking Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy conducted by the district court. The claim also runs afoul of settled precedent. See, e.g., United States v. De Alba Pagan, 33 F.3d 125, 127-28 (1st Cir. 1994). We need go no further. Affirmed.