US v. Donegan
Case Date: 10/26/1994
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 94-1531
|
October 25, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 94-1531 MICHAEL DONEGAN, Petitioner, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent Appellee. ____________________ No. 94-1532 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. MICHAEL HOWARD DONEGAN, Defendant, Appellant. ___________________ APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________ ____________________ Before Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________ Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, and ____________________ Boudin, Circuit Judge. _____________ ____________________ Walter F. McKee on brief for appellant. _______________ Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Kevin O'Regan, _________________ ______________ Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. Appellant, Michael Donegan, appeals __________ his conviction and sentence and the district court's denial of his motion to reduce and/or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. In an order dated August 5, 1994, this court consolidated these two appeals for the purposes of argument and the filing of pleadings. Appellant contends that the sentence enhancement provision contained in 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2) does not apply to him. We reject that argument as foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Rodriquez, 26 F.3d 4, 6 (1st ______________ _________ Cir. 1994), and for the reasons contained in the district court's Memorandum and Order dated September 23, 1993. Appellant's second ground for appeal is that the district court erred in failing to reduce his offense-level for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to Section 3E1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. For essentially the reasons stated in the district court's Memorandum and Order dated May 2, 1994, we conclude that denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was not clear error. Accordingly, we summarily affirm pursuant to Loc. R. 27.1 appellant's conviction and sentence and the denial of his 2255 motion. |