US v. McKeen

Filing

OPINION issued by Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge; Bruce M. Selya, Appellate Judge and Kermit V. Lipez, Appellate Judge. Per Curiam. Unpublished. [10-1747]

Case: 10-1747 Document: 00116207446 Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/11/2011

Entry ID: 5549805

Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 10-1747
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
PATRICK McKEEN,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

Before
Torruella, Selya and Lipez,
Circuit Judges.

Mark E. Howard and Howard & Ruoff, PLLC on brief for
appellant.
Seth R. Aframe, Assistant United States Attorney, and Michael
J. Gunnison, Attorney (acting under authority conferred by 28
U.S.C. § 515), on brief for appellee.

May 11, 2011

Case: 10-1747 Document: 00116207446 Page: 2

Per Curiam.

Date Filed: 05/11/2011

Entry ID: 5549805

This is a single-issue sentencing appeal.

Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the district court
could supportably find — as it did — that the prosecutor's decision
not to move for an additional reduction in the defendant's offense
level for timely acceptance of responsibility, see USSG §3E1.1(b),
was neither irrational nor motivated by an unconstitutional reason.
The

decision

was,

therefore,

within

the

prosecutor's

wide

discretion, see, e.g., United States v. Beatty, 538 F.3d 8, 15 (1st
Cir. 2008), and the district court did not err in refusing to
compel the prosecutor to make such a motion.
We need go no further.
affirm the defendant's sentence.

On this basis, we summarily
See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

Affirmed.

-2-