United States v. Raines

USCA1 Opinion












[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 96-1755

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

JAMES OTIS RAINES,

Defendant, Appellant.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Boudin, Circuit Judge. _____________

____________________

Gordon R. Blakeney, Jr. on brief for appellant. _______________________
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, James L. McCarthy and ________________ __________________
Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for _____________________
appellee.


____________________

March 25, 1997
____________________
















Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and ___________

record, we conclude that defendant's plea should not be

vacated. The district court told defendant that he was

"subject to a term of imprisonment which is a minimum of 15

years." Even though the district court did not state that

the minimum sentence was "mandatory," that slip does not

entitle defendant to relief in the circumstances of this

case.

Defendant offers no plausible reason for his belated

attempt to change his plea; he makes no claim of innocence;

and there is nothing legally suspect about the plea. The

proceedings as a whole suggest that defendant reasonably

should have understood, and did understand, the sentencing

implications of his plea. See United States v. Lopez-Pineda, ___ _____________ ____________

55 F.3d 693, 696 (1st Cir. 1995).

We also find no merit in defendant's contention

regarding an enhancement for obstruction of justice. That

enhancement had no bearing on the armed career criminal

sentence ultimately imposed here under U.S.S.G.

4B1.4(b)(3). See United States v. Ruiz-Garcia, 886 F.2d 474, ___ _____________ ___________

476 (1st Cir. 1989).

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___









-2-