USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1079
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
BARRY TWOMEY,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Lynch, Circuit Judge. _____________
____________________
Diana L. Maldonado on brief for appellant. __________________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Jeanne M. __________________ __________
Kempthorne, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. __________
____________________
October 14, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. Defendant-appellant Barry Twomey pled ___________
guilty to two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. 2113(a). In sentencing him, the district court
awarded a two-level reduction in his base offense level for
his acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
3E1.1(a). The sole issue on appeal is whether the district
court committed clear error in denying an additional one-
level reduction under 3E1.1(b).
"A defendant bears the burden of proving entitlement to
decreases in the offense level, including downward
adjustments for acceptance of responsibility. Once the
sentencing court has ruled against him on such an issue, the
defendant faces an uphill battle. . . .The clearly erroneous
standard . . . guides appellate review of district court
determinations under section 3E1.1(b)." United States v. _____________
Morillo, 8 F.3d 864, 871 (1st Cir. 1993). _______
In denying the additional one-level reduction under
3E1.1(b), the court ruled that the timing of appellant's
expression of his intent to plead guilty had not permitted
the government to avoid preparing for trial. Specifically,
the district court found that when appellant indicated his
intention to plead guilty, ten days before the second
scheduled trial date, the government had already made
substantial submissions and prepared its witnesses. Neither
that finding nor the court's determination on that basis that
-2-
appellant did not qualify for the additional one-level
reduction was clearly erroneous.
Appellant's sentence is summarily affirmed. See Loc. R. ________ ___
27.1.
-3-