The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
013977mo-pdf•United States of America v. Victor Rosario-Moya
013977mo-pdfCourt of Appeals for the Third CircuitJun 14, 2002
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 01-3977
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
VICTOR ROSARIO-MOYA,
Appellant
On Appeal from the District
Court of the Virgin Islands
(Division of St. Thomas and St. John)
(D.C. Criminal No. 01-cr-00042-1)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas K. Moore
Argued May 14, 2002
Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 14, 2002)
Thurston T. McKelvin
Federal Public Defender
DOUGLAS J. BEE
Office of the
P.O. Box 1327, 51B Kongens Gade
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas
David L. Atkinson
United States Attorney
KIM L. CHISHOLM, ESQUIRE (Argued)
U.S. Attorney’s Office
5500 Veterans Building, Suite 26
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas
Transcribed by: Geraldine C. Laws, CET
(Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording;
transcript prepared by AAERT-certified transcriber.)
(The following bench opinion was delivered in open court:)
BENCH OPINION
AMBRO: Circuit Judge.
-- 1 of 2 --
(The following is the bench opinion of the Court in the above-captioned matter:)
THE HONORABLE JUDGE AMBRO: At the outset I would like to thank
you for ordering the transcript, albeit I realize that it is due on Thursday. But the oral
argument this morning was particularly helpful for us in ferreting out the facts relating to
the 1986 conviction. And as I noted to Mr. Beevers, if the 1986 conviction is a felony
punishable under the Controlled Substances Act or would be a felony punishable under
the Controlled Substances Act, that pretty much does it in terms of this particular case.
Paragraph 24 of the presentence report, which as noted during oral argument was
not objected to, states that the defendant was represented by counsel. On June 24, 1986,
undercover officers met the defendant at an agreed-upon room in the Bronx. The
defendant handed the officers three vials of crack and they paid him $10 in prerecorded
buy money. The officers then radioed for a backup team. Pursuant to a search warrant,
officers of the SACU Narcotics Division arrived at the scene and arrested the defendant.
The police laboratory report indicated that the three vials contained 8.2 grams of cocaine.
The defendant subsequently admitted to selling crack to support his own drug
addiction. That was not objected to and it is in that context that the prerequisites are met
for the enhancement of sentencing in this case. Therefore the judgment of sentence is
hereby affirmed.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Bench Opinion.
By the Court,
/s/ Thomas L. Ambro
Circuit Judg
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.