USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-2139
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
WILLY MARROQUIN, a/k/a Willy Adolfo Marroquin Mendez,
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
Cyr, Stahl and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Thomas A. Grasso on brief for appellant. ________________
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, Margaret E. Curran, __________________ ___________________
Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Stephanie S. Browne, Assistant U.S. _____________________
Attorney, on Motion For Summary Disposition and Memorandum In Support
Of Motion For Summary Dispositon for appellee.
____________________
December 27, 1996
____________________
Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the record, ___________
defendant's brief, and the government's motion asking that we
summarily remand to the district court for further
proceedings, we agree that oral argument is not necessary and
that the requirements of U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b) should be
reconsidered on remand.
Section 3E1.1(b) provides an additional 1-level
reduction if the defendant qualifies for the initial decrease
under 3E1.1(a), has an offense level of 16 or more, and
either:
(1) timely provid[es] complete information to the
government concerning his own involvement in the
offense; or (2) timely notif[ies] authorities of
his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby
permitting the government to avoid preparing for
trial and permitting the court to allocate its
resources efficiently.
Once the reduction under 3E1.1(a) has been allowed, the
only relevant inquiry is whether the defendant meets either
of the criteria of 3E1.1(b). United States v. Talladino, _____________ _________
38 F.3d 1255, 1266 (1st Cir. 1994).
Here, the district court granted the 3E1.1(a)
reduction and made no findings as to the 3E1.1(b) criteria.
The government did not object in the district court to a
3E1.1(b) reduction, and now the government states that "The
record suggests no obvious basis for denying the one-level
reduction."
-2-
In these circumstances, we conclude that it is
appropriate to vacate the sentence and remand the cause to
the district court for resentencing after consideration of
the 3E1.1(b) criteria. The district court may order any
further proceedings it deems necessary before resentencing.
Sentence vacated and cause remanded to the district ________________________________________________________
court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ___________________________________________________________
-3-