USCA1 Opinion
March 28, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1273
CESAR AUGUSTO CETINA GOMEZ,
Petitioner, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Cesar Augusto Cetina Gomez on brief pro se. __________________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Warren Vazquez, Assistant _____________ ______________
United States Attorney, and Jos A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation _______________________
Counsel, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Appellant Cesar Augusto Cetina-Gomez was __________
convicted of various offenses related to an effort at cocaine
smuggling and sentenced to, inter alia, seventy-eight months' _____ ____
imprisonment. He appeals a district court order that
summarily denied his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to reduce that
sentence. Appellant contends that the district court erred
by refusing to reduce his sentence under an amendment to the
United States Sentencing Guidelines that was enacted
approximately two years after he was sentenced. See United ___
States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 2D1.1(c), __________________
Application Note 1 (Nov. 1993)(providing that weight of
materials that must be separated from a controlled substance
before it can be used are to be excluded from sentencing
calculations). The district court determined that this
amendment did not apply to appellant because his sentence was
based on the net weights of mixtures that contained cocaine
in a usable form. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and
the parties' briefs on appeal. We hold that the district
court's analysis is correct. Appellant has failed to come
forward with any evidence that the cocaine which he was
carrying was not in a usable form when seized. The portions
of the record that are before us indicate to the contrary.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. ________
See Local Rule 27.1. ___