Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Camacho, 1st Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views3 pages
    The US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in the case of United States v. Edgar Camacho. The appeals court found that drug quantity was not an element of the offense, so the district court's failure to explore the factual basis for the drug quantity specified in Camacho's plea agreement was not erroneous. The appeals court also found no clear error in the district court's finding at sentencing that Camacho was responsible for the drug quantity in the plea agreement, in light of Camacho agreeing to that amount, admitting involvement in the conspiracy, and receiving benefits from the plea agreement. Camacho's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not cognizable on direct appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-02-28 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 98-1865

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in the case of United States v. Edgar Camacho. The appeals court found that drug quantity was not an element of the offense, so the district court's failure to explore the factual basis for the drug quantity specified in Camacho's plea agreement was not erroneous. The appeals court also found no clear error in the district court's finding at sentencing that Camacho was responsible for the drug quantity in the plea agreement, in light of Camacho agreeing to that amount, admitting involvement in the conspiracy, and receiving benefits from the plea agreement. Camacho's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not cognizable on direct appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views3 pages

    United States v. Camacho, 1st Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in the case of United States v. Edgar Camacho. The appeals court found that drug quantity was not an element of the offense, so the district court's failure to explore the factual basis for the drug quantity specified in Camacho's plea agreement was not erroneous. The appeals court also found no clear error in the district court's finding at sentencing that Camacho was responsible for the drug quantity in the plea agreement, in light of Camacho agreeing to that amount, admitting involvement in the conspiracy, and receiving benefits from the plea agreement. Camacho's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not cognizable on direct appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    USCA1 Opinion

    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]


    United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit

    No. 98-1865

    UNITED STATES,

    Appellee,

    v.

    EDGAR CAMACHO,

    Defendant, Appellant.

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]

    Before

    Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,


    Circuit Judges.

    Joshua L. Gordon on brief for appellant.


    Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Kevin P. McGrath,
    Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

    February 24, 2000

    Per Curiam.

    After a thorough review of the record

    and of the parties' submissions, we affirm.

    Drug quantity was

    not an element of the offense, so the lower court's failure at


    the Rule 11 hearing to explore the factual basis for the
    quantity specified in the plea agreement was not error.
    States v. Lindia, 82 F.3d 1154, 1160 (1st Cir. 1996).

    United
    We see

    no clear error in the court's finding at sentencing that


    Camacho should be responsible for the quantity specified in the
    plea agreement, especially in light of Camacho's agreement to
    be responsible for that amount, United States v. MarreroRivera, 124 F.3d 342, 354 (1st Cir. 1997); his admission that
    he was involved in the conspiracy during the times in question,
    United States v. Miranda-Santiago, 96 F.3d 517, 524-25 (1st Cir.
    1996); and the benefits Camacho reaped from the agreement, id.
    Camacho's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not
    cognizable on direct appeal.

    United States v. Torres, 162 F.3d

    6, 11 n. 3 (1st Cir. 1998).


    Affirmed.

    1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).

    You might also like