USCA1 Opinion
November 24, 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.
______________
____________________
Lydia Lizarr bar-Masini for appellant.
_______________________
Antonio R. Baz n, with whom Daniel F. L pez-Romo, United
_________________ _____________________
States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
____________________
* Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. This appeal arises out of
______________
the district court's refusal to adjust appellant's sentence level
downward by two points for acceptance of responsibility. Because
we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we
affirm.
Appellant was found guilty by a jury of three counts of
drug-related crimes.1 After the trial, appellant made
statements of admittance during an interview with the probation
officer. At his sentencing hearing, appellant also stated "I
know I did wrong and besides having done it wrong, I'm very
repentant, and I ask forgiveness from the court." Appellant
contends that these statements demonstrate the required
acceptance of responsibility. The district judge disagreed, and
sentenced him to 48 months imprisonment on counts one and two,
and 78 months imprisonment on count three, all to run
concurrently. This sentence fell within the applicable guideline
range for appellant's offense level.
We note that the district court's conclusion as to the
downward adjustment is consistent with Application Note 2 of
United States Sentencing Guideline 3E1.1, pertaining to
acceptance of responsibility. That Note explains that "[t]his
adjustment is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the
____________________
1 Counts one and two charged appellant with willfully, knowingly
and intentionally using a telephone in committing and
facilitating the commission of the crime of distribution of
cocaine on two separate dates. Count three charged appellant
with willfully, knowingly and unlawfully distributing
approximately 918 grams of cocaine.
-2-
government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the
essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then
admits guilt and expresses remorse." The Note continues, stating
that in "rare situations" a defendant may qualify for the
adjustment while still having a trial, but only based upon "pre-
trial statements and conduct."
Appellant contends that he could not admit guilt before
trial because his codefendants threatened him and his family.
Appellant contends that this duress excuses his otherwise
untimely admissions. We note, however, that the trial judge knew
of appellant's contention before he rejected the request for the
downward adjustment.
We review the district court's finding in this case
with great deference because "the sentencing judge is in a unique
position to evaluate a defendant's acceptance of responsibility."
United States v. Uricoechea-Casallas, 946 F.2d 162, 167 (1st Cir.
_____________ ___________________
1991) (citing United States Sentencing Guideline 3E1.1
comment). We therefore will reverse the finding only if it
amounts to clear error. United States v. Bradley, 917 F.2d 601,
______________ _______
606 (1st Cir. 1990). Given this standard, we cannot conclude
that the district judge erred in denying the downward adjustment.
The district court had the opportunity to assess
appellant's demeanor and credibility, and evaluate his acceptance
of responsibility, including his allegations of threats, in the
context of the case as a whole. See id. Due to his assessment
___ __
-3-
of these factors, the district court concluded that appellant did
not accept responsibility at the hearing, but merely expressed
remorse. This conclusion is bolstered by the presentence report,
which expressly found that appellant was not eligible for the
reduction because appellant made no pre-trial admissions.
Given the lack of any pre-trial acceptance of
responsibility, and the insistence of the Sentencing Guidelines
for such a timely acceptance of responsibility, we cannot say
that the district judge committed clear error in refusing to
apply the downward adjustment.
Affirmed.
________
-4-