United States v. Gell, 1st Cir. (1998)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Gell, 1st Cir. (1998)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUSCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-1685
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
DAVID GELL,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Thomas V. Laprade and Lambert, Coffin, Rudman & Hochman on brie
_________________
_________________________________
for appellant.
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, Margaret D. McGaughey
________________
_____________________
and Helene Kazanjian Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief fo
appellee.
____________________
February 4, 1998
____________________
Per Curiam.
__________
We have thoroughly reviewed the record
on appeal and the submissions
of the parties, and we affirm.
Since
the government's witness
he had purchased at least
appellant
during 1995
cocaine to the
no
Cir.
alone, and
in the
that
sentencing
was responsible for
five kilograms.
(1st
five kilograms of cocaine from the
appellant had
sold
witness on several other occasions, there was
clear error
appellant
at sentencing testified that
court's conclusion
the distribution of
that
at least
United States v. Lindia, 82 F.3d 1154, 1159
________________________
1996)
(sentencing
court
must make
credibility
determinations, and reviewing court will only set those aside
for
clear
error).
transcript and
of reasons
It
apparent
from
the sentencing
from the sentencing court's written statement
that the court
States v. Van,
is
relied on that evidence.
87 F.3d 1 (1st
Cir. 1996).
Thus,
United
______
the court
_____________
properly adopted
U.S.S.G.
base offense
2D1.1(c)(4).
Affirmed.
_________
Loc. R. 27.1.
-2-
level of
32, pursuant
to
