USCA1 Opinion
June 5, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1014
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH F. ALBANESE,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Randy Olen and John M. Cicilline on brief for appellant. __________ _________________
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Richard W. Rose, __________________ _______________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam After careful review of the briefs and __________
record, we find no clear error in the district court's
Sentencing Guidelines calculation.
Specifically, the district court's determination
that defendant was not entitled to a two-level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility is based on a plausible view of
the circumstances. We will not reweigh the factors
considered by the district court; nor can we say as a matter
of law that defendant's letter to the victim was not
threatening and inconsistent with an acceptance of
responsibility as contemplated by U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. See ___
United States v. Royer, 895 F.2d 28, 29 (1st Cir. 1990). _____________ _____
Next, considering both the victim's age and the
circumstances of defendant's second, repeat theft from her,
there is sufficient support for the district court's
determination that a two-level increase for the victim's
vulnerability was warranted. See U.S.S.G. 3A1.1(b); United ___ ______
States v. Feldman, No. 95-1900, slip op. at 11-16 (1st Cir. ______ _______
April 26, 1996); cf. United States v. Rowe, 999 F.2d 14, 16- __ _____________ ____
17 (1st Cir. 1993).
Finally, as defendant committed the thefts under
the guise of his work as an investment advisor purporting to
assist the victim, there is no clear error in the district
court's imposition of a two-level increase for abuse of
defendant's position of trust. See U.S.S.G. 3B1.3; United ___ ______
States v. Tardiff, 969 F.2d 1283, 1289 (1st Cir. 1992). ______ _______
-3-
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___
-4-