Not for Publication in West's Reporter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 defendant-

appellant Romelly Dastinot and eleven codefendants. The

indictment charged Dastinot with, inter alia, conspiracy to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled

substances, see

(a)(1), 846, and conspiracy to

commit money laundering, see

(a)(1)(B)(i). Some

of the evidence against Dastinot and his coconspirators was

gathered through court-authorized wiretaps, see

§§ 2510-2522,

and Dastinot moved to suppress the evidence gleaned through

wiretapping. 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. Thereafter, Dastinot

entered a conditional guilty plea to the lead count of the

indictment, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2), reserving the right to

challenge the district court's suppression ruling. Gordon, too,

entered a conditional guilty plea. 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. See United States v.

- 2 - 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. The judgment of the district

court is summarily

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

- 3 -