Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Bramley

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

January 26, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v.
DANIEL BRAMLEY, Defendant, Appellee.

         APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE Hon. George Z. Singal, U.S. District Judge

          Jamesa J. Drake, with whom Drake Law, LLC was on brief, for appellant.

          Julia M. Lipez, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Thomas E. Delahanty II, United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee.

          Before Kayatta, Circuit Judge, Souter, Associate Justice, [*] and Selya, Circuit Judge.

          SELYA, Circuit Judge.

         This sentencing appeal requires us to explore the intersection between the right of a sentencing judge to receive confidential advice from probation officers and the right of a convicted defendant to know the nature of the information upon which he is sentenced and to challenge its relevancy and accuracy. Concluding, as we do, that the court below did not plainly err by engaging in brief, off-the-record conversations with a probation officer during the appellant's sentencing, we affirm.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The relevant facts and travel of the case can be succinctly summarized. Defendant-appellant Daniel Bramley, a British national, came to the attention of federal authorities during a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) wiretap investigation into the operations of a drug-trafficking ring in and around Portland, Maine. The investigation revealed the ringleader to be one Robert Evon, and the DEA intercepted several communications between Evon and the appellant in mid-2013. Among other things, Evon requested that the appellant collect "paperwork" from a coconspirator. The appellant complied, retrieving a package that contained $25, 000 in drug proceeds. He later accompanied Evon to Scarborough, Maine; obtained twenty pounds of marijuana; and peddled some of the marijuana in Vermont.

          As its investigation progressed, the DEA obtained additional information from a cooperating witness (who turned out to be none other than Evon himself). Cf. William Shakespeare, The First Part of King Henry the Fourth act 2, sc. 2 (1597) ("A plague upon it when thieves cannot be true one to another!"). We highlight this additional information, mindful that the appellant disputes much of it.

● Roughly ten years earlier, Evon procured sizeable quantities of marijuana from the appellant on multiple occasions.
● In 2012, the appellant - acting as a middleman -connected Evon with a marijuana source in Staten Island, New York.
● Either the same year or the next year, the appellant arranged for Evon to obtain marijuana from yet another New York source.
● Evon and the appellant subsequently met this second supplier in San Francisco to acquire liquid LSD (which the two men planned to sell in Vermont and Maine).

         The DEA investigation reached its climax in March of 2014. At that time, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Maine indicted the appellant on charges of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846; unlawful use of a communication facility, see id. § 843(b); and related criminal forfeitures, see id. ยง 853. After initially maintaining his innocence, the appellant entered a guilty plea to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.