US v. Morales-Martinez
Case Date: 11/10/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 97-1569
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 97-1569 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. CESAR MORALES-MARTINEZ, Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Jose R. Franco Rivera on brief for appellant. _____________________ Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega-Pacheco, ______________ ______________________ Chief, Criminal Division, W. Stephen Muldrow, and Rebecca Kellogg-de __________________ __________________ Jesus, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for appellee. _____ ____________________ November 5, 1997 ____________________ Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and __________ record presented in this appeal, we perceive no error in the weapons adjustment, U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1), applied in calculating defendant's sentence. That adjustment was adequately supported by the government's version of the facts, to which defendant admitted. Defendant's argument that he did not possess the weapon "in connection with" the drug transaction is unsupported by the appellate record, and we will not disturb the district court's findings in that regard. Further, given the differing circumstances in which defendant and his co-defendant were arrested, charged, and pled, we cannot conclude that the differing sentences imposed upon them amounted to error. Thus we reject defendant's equal protection argument, as well as his argument that he should qualify for safety valve relief because his co- defendant did so. Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___ -2- |