Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Notice: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 States Unpublished Opinions May Be Cited Only in Related Cases.united States, Appellee, v. Khamtan Sine, Defendant, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 107 F.3d 1
Feb. 5, 1997
Thomas G. Briody on brief for appellant.
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, Margaret E. Curran, Assistant United States Attorney, and Zechariah Chafee, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
Before SELYA, CYR and BOUDIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Khamtan Sine appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to two counts of distributing crack cocaine. Appellant's sole argument is that the district court erred in concluding that the government agent's conduct--in requesting appellant to convert cocaine powder into its crack form and in assisting in the conversion on one occasion--did not amount to "extraordinary misconduct." See United States v. Montoya, 62 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1995). Such a judgment by the district court "is not lightly to be disregarded." Id. The district court did not clearly err in finding that there were neither threats nor coercion in this case. Nor was there any indication of illegitimate motives on the part of the government agent involved. We agree with the district court that this is a "garden variety" sentencing factor manipulation claim. See id.
Appellant's sentence is affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1.