USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-1558
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
RICHARD JOSEPH PICARDI, A/K/A FAT RITCHIE,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________
Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Boudin, Circuit Judge. _____________
____________________
John J. Barter on brief for appellant. ______________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and James C. Rehnquist, _______________ __________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
____________________
December 9, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. Upon careful review, we cannot conclude __________
that the district court misunderstood its authority to depart
under U.S.S.G. 5H1.4. The district court's comments,
fairly read, indicate only that the departure was denied as a
matter of discretion. That exercise of discretion is not
subject to appellate review. See United States v. LeBlanc, ___ _____________ _______
24 F.3d 340, 348 (1st Cir. 1994).
Further, the adjustments under both U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(b)
(managerial role in the offense), and U.S.S.G.
2B1.1(b)(4)(B) (business of receiving and selling stolen
property) did not effect an improper double counting. See ___
United States v. Reeves, 83 F.3d 203, 208 (8th Cir. 1996). _____________ ______
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___
-2-