
USCA1 Opinion

	




        October 25, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1531                                   MICHAEL DONEGAN,                                Petitioner, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Respondent Appellee.                                 ____________________        No. 94-1532                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                               MICHAEL HOWARD DONEGAN,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ___________________                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                 [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                          __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                         Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, and                                   ____________________                                Boudin, Circuit Judge.                                        _____________                                 ____________________            Walter F. McKee on brief for appellant.            _______________            Donald  K.  Stern,  United  States  Attorney,  and Kevin  O'Regan,            _________________                                  ______________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.    Appellant, Michael Donegan,  appeals                      __________            his conviction  and sentence and the  district court's denial            of his motion to reduce  and/or correct his sentence pursuant            to  28 U.S.C.   2255.  In an order dated August 5, 1994, this            court  consolidated these  two  appeals for  the purposes  of            argument and the filing of pleadings.                 Appellant   contends   that  the   sentence  enhancement            provision contained in 8 U.S.C.    1326(b)(2) does not  apply            to him.  We reject that argument as  foreclosed by our recent            decision in United  States v.  Rodriquez, 26 F.3d  4, 6  (1st                        ______________     _________            Cir. 1994),  and for  the reasons contained  in the  district            court's  Memorandum  and  Order  dated  September  23,  1993.            Appellant's  second ground  for appeal  is that  the district            court  erred  in  failing  to reduce  his  offense-level  for            acceptance of  responsibility pursuant  to Section   3E1.1 of            the United States Sentencing Guidelines.  For essentially the            reasons stated  in the district court's  Memorandum and Order            dated May 2, 1994, we conclude that denial of a reduction for            acceptance of responsibility was not clear error.                   Accordingly,  we summarily  affirm pursuant  to Loc.  R.            27.1 appellant's  conviction and  sentence and the  denial of            his   2255 motion.
