US v. Dastinot, No. 16-1272 (1st Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Not for Publication in West's Reporter United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 16-1272 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. ROMELLY DASTINOT, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Jon D. Levy, U.S. District Judge] Before Torruella, Selya and Kayatta, Circuit Judges. Daphne H. Donahue, with whom Timothy E. Zerillo and Hallett, Zerillo & Whipple, P.A. were on brief, for appellant. Renée M. Bunker, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Richard W. Murphy, Acting United States Attorney, and Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorney, Appellate Chief, were on brief, for appellee. September 13, 2017 SELYA, Circuit Judge. Following a protracted investigation of drug-trafficking in and around Lewiston, Maine, spearheaded by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), a federal grand jury handed up an indictment naming defendantappellant Romelly indictment charged distribute and Dastinot and Dastinot with, possess with eleven codefendants. inter intent to alia, The conspiracy distribute to controlled substances, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, see 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). of the evidence against Dastinot and his coconspirators Some was gathered through court-authorized wiretaps, see id. §§ 2510-2522, and Dastinot wiretapping. moved to suppress the evidence gleaned through One of his codefendants, Dimitry Gordon, filed a similar motion. The district court denied both Dastinot's motion to suppress and Gordon's motion to suppress. entered a conditional guilty plea to the Thereafter, Dastinot lead count of the indictment, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2), reserving the right to challenge the district court's suppression ruling. entered a conditional guilty plea. Gordon, too, After the district court sentenced the two men, both of them filed timely notices of appeal. We consolidated Dastinot's and Gordon's appeals and heard oral argument on July 26, 2017. We rejected Gordon's appeal by an opinion issued on September 8, 2017. - 2 - See United States v. Gordon, ___ F.3d ___ (1st Cir. 2017) [No. 15-2087]. We noted at that time that Dastinot's appeal would be decided separately. See id. at ___ n.1 [slip op. at 2 n.1]. We now turn to Dastinot's appeal. It presents a narrower subset of the issues already considered and resolved in Gordon's appeal. No useful purpose would be served by repastinating soil already well-plowed. Accordingly, we deny Dastinot's appeal for substantially the reasons set forth in our earlier opinion. See id. at ___ [slip op. at 16-20]. We need go no further. court is summarily Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c). - 3 - The judgment of the district