
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-2139                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                WILLY MARROQUIN, a/k/a Willy Adolfo Marroquin Mendez,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                         __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Cyr, Stahl and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Thomas A. Grasso on brief for appellant.            ________________            Sheldon Whitehouse,  United States Attorney,  Margaret E.  Curran,            __________________                            ___________________        Assistant  U.S.  Attorney, and  Stephanie  S.  Browne, Assistant  U.S.                                        _____________________        Attorney, on  Motion For Summary Disposition and Memorandum In Support        Of Motion For Summary Dispositon for appellee.                                 ____________________                                  December 27, 1996                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.    Upon   careful  review  of  the  record,                 ___________            defendant's brief, and the government's motion asking that we            summarily   remand  to   the   district  court   for  further            proceedings, we agree that oral argument is not necessary and            that  the  requirements  of  U.S.S.G.    3E1.1(b)  should  be            reconsidered on remand.                 Section   3E1.1(b)   provides   an  additional   1-level            reduction if the defendant qualifies for the initial decrease            under    3E1.1(a), has  an offense level  of 16  or more, and            either:                      (1)  timely provid[es] complete  information to the                      government  concerning his  own involvement  in the                      offense;  or (2)  timely notif[ies]  authorities of                      his intention  to enter  a plea of  guilty, thereby                      permitting  the government  to avoid  preparing for                      trial  and permitting  the  court to  allocate  its                      resources efficiently.            Once the  reduction under    3E1.1(a) has  been allowed,  the            only relevant  inquiry is whether the  defendant meets either            of the criteria of    3E1.1(b).  United States  v. Talladino,                                             _____________     _________            38 F.3d 1255, 1266 (1st Cir. 1994).                 Here,  the  district  court   granted  the      3E1.1(a)            reduction and made no findings as to the   3E1.1(b) criteria.            The  government did not object  in the district  court to a              3E1.1(b) reduction,  and now the government  states that "The            record suggests  no obvious  basis for denying  the one-level            reduction."                                         -2-                 In  these  circumstances,   we  conclude   that  it   is            appropriate  to vacate the  sentence and remand  the cause to            the district  court for resentencing  after consideration  of            the    3E1.1(b) criteria.   The district court  may order any            further proceedings it deems necessary before resentencing.                 Sentence  vacated and  cause  remanded  to the  district                 ________________________________________________________            court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.            ___________________________________________________________                                         -3-
