USCA1 Opinion

[Not for Publication]

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
____________________

No. 97-1286

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

GLENN P. LACEDRA,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge,

_____________
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________

____________________

Donald R. Furman, Jr. for appellant.

_____________________
Robert E. Richardson, Assistant United
____________________

States Attorney, with w

Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.

_______________

____________________

December 1, 1997
____________________

Per Curiam.
Per Curiam.
__________

Defendant-appellant Glenn

P. LaCedra

appeals

made

his jury convictions for possession of an unlawfully

destructive

possession of a

the

National

device

under

26

U.S.C.

5861(c)

destructive device not registered

Firearms

pursuant

to the

contends

that

Registration

requirements of

the

statutory

and

to him in

Transfer

26 U.S.C.

obligations

and

Record

5861(d).

He

apply

for

to

permission to make, and to register, a pipe bomb constitute a

violation

of

incrimination.

his Fifth

LaCedra

Amendment

also

privilege

appeals

against self-

from his

sentence,

arguing that the district court clearly erred in finding that

he created

a substantial

injury

another

murder.

to

We affirm.

and

risk

of death

attempted

to

or serious

commit

bodily

first-degree

Beginning

with

the

sentencing

issues,

apparent

to us that

the district

court committed

error.

The

adopted

findings

Presentence

court

the

of

it

is

no clear

defendant's

Report (PSR),1 which were based on evidence that

____________________

1.

The

PSR

determined defendant's

level through two separate routes.

2K1.4,

covering

arson

explosives, to recommend
2K1.4(a)(1)(A)

on

preadjustments

It first applied U.S.S.G.

and property

damage

by

a base offense level of

finding

offense

that

use

of

24 under

defendant

"knowingly"

created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Based on

the premise that

murder,

the

PSR

defendant had intended

applied

reference

2K1.4(a)(1)(A)

attempted

murder guideline,

U.S.S.G.

2K1.4(c)

with U.S.S.G.

to commit
to

cross

2A2.1(a)(1), the

thereby increasing

defendant's

base offense level to 28.

The PSR
offense level under

also alternatively
U.S.S.G.

calculated defendant's

2K2.1, covering

-22

the unlawful

showed, among

other things,

that after

defendant's persistent advances,

under her

car

near the

device, he wrapped

car

was running.

spurned

LaCedra placed a pipe

gas tank.

To

create an

the bomb's fuse several

vehicle's exhaust pipe,

the

the victim

ignition

times around the

a "source of significant

Further, the

bomb

evidence

heat" when

showed that

defendant was familiar with bombmaking and that, in fact, the

positioning of

designed

to

the bomb under the victim's car was seemingly

cause

the gas

tank

to

explode, raising

This and

the

potential

for additional damage.

including

a detailed diagram that defendant drew showing the

placement

of a

pipe bomb under

other evidence,

the victim's

car, provided

ample basis for the court to determine, by a preponderance of

the

evidence, that

victim

and

constituted

that

that

defendant had

the

object

first-degree

of

murder.

he intended only to scare

attempted

the

to murder

offense

Defendant's

would

the

have

contentions

the victim and that the bomb

may well have never exploded even had it not been noticed and

removed do not undermine the

analysis

court's conclusion.

We end our

here because our resolution of the attempted murder

____________________

possession

of firearms,

to arrive

at a

base level

which it then augmented six levels pursuant to

and (b)(5), and

of 18,

2K2.1(b)(3)

similarly cross-referenced under

2A2.1 to

arrive at the same offense level of 28.

The
base offense

PSR concluded
level of 28

with a recommendation

be enhanced two levels

that the
because of

defendant's

attempt to obstruct justice during his trial, an

enhancement

not

contested

by defendant.

3C1.1.

-33

See
___

U.S.S.G.

issue also disposes

knowingly

create

of defendant's argument that he

substantial risk

of

death

bodilyinjuryto anotherforpurposes ofU.S.S.G.

did not

or serious

2K1.4(a)(1)(A).

Proceeding to defendant's constitutional issues, we

summarily note that

violate

the

Fifth

26 U.S.C.

Amendment.

explicitly held that

5861(c) and

The

5861(d) do not

Supreme

Court

has

5861(d) satisfies the Fifth Amendment.

See United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 605-07 (1971).

___ _____________
_____

The

reasoning in Freed
_____

can be applied

also to

The

National

Act

obligation

Firearms

places no

5861(c).

on

a firearm

possessor, qua possessor, to seek to register a firearm.

___

as the evidence

issue, then he

indicates, defendant made

was required to submit an

the pipe bomb

If,

at

application to the

Bureau of

bomb.

Alcohol, Tobacco

Applying

and Firearms

to make the device

before making

is a legal act,

defendant done so, his Fifth Amendment rights

been

implicated for the

would have been denied.

Affirmed.
Affirmed
________

simple reason that

the

and had

would not have

his application

-44