United States v. Caparotta
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6915
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Caparotta participated in a burglary of a federally licensed firearms dealer in Maine and was arrested a few days later.
- During a bail interview on Aug. 27, 2010, Caparotta and counsel discussed Caparotta’s history of substance abuse.
- The Pretrial Services Report (Aug. 31, 2010) noted marijuana use since age nine, past heroin and other drug use, and stated a confidentiality notice appeared at the top.
- In December 2010, the PSR concluded Caparotta qualified as a “prohibited person” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(6) based on his substance-abuse history and August 2010 conduct.
- Caparotta objected in Feb. 2011 sentencing papers to using bail-interview statements to deem him a prohibited person, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3153(c) and Rule 32 confidentiality provisions.
- At a June 6, 2011 sentencing, the district court found Caparotta was a prohibited person, imposed concurrent 54-month terms, and Caparotta appealed asserting due process, Rule 32, and ineffective-assistance claims; the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bail-interview statements used for sentencing violated due process or Rule 32. | Caparotta argues confidentiality promises were violated. | Caparotta contends information was improperly admitted. | Waived/plain-error; use allowed under 3153(c) and not a Rule 32 violation. |
| Whether Rule 32(d)(3) confidentiality protections barred use of bail-interview statements. | Statements were protected confidential sources. | No evidence of a promise of confidentiality at interview; admissible. | No error; Probation could use the information for PSR; district court had discretion. |
| Whether Caparotta received ineffective assistance of counsel based on disclosing August 2010 drug use. | Attorney allowed disclosure, causing prejudice. | Disclosures had tactical justification; no prejudice. | Prejudice not shown; Strickland's prejudice prong not met; claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Marceau, 554 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2009) (defined unlawful user standard under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3))
- United States v. Edwards, 540 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2008) (temporal nexus for unlawful user)
- United States v. McCowan, 469 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2006) (proximate/cont contemporaneous use standard)
- United States v. Rivera-Rodríguez, 489 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (discretionary use of information in PSR at sentencing)
- United States v. Ríos-Hernández, 645 F.3d 456 (1st Cir. 2011) (plain-error standard for sentencing claims)
- United States v. Wallace, 573 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2009) (de novo review normally, but plain-error approach on waived claims)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Arimont, 268 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2001) (ineffective-assistance claims on direct review where appropriate)