Court Opinion

ID: 2963710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:10.79346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:44.967799
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        October 24, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1201

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                      JOSE MIGUEL CRUZ, A/K/A JOSE CRUZ MORILLO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Robert A. Levine on brief for appellant.
            ________________
            Jay P.  McCloskey, United  States Attorney,  Jonathan R.  Chapman,
            _________________                            ____________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, and  Margaret D. McGaughey, on brief
                                               _____________________
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   Appellant  Jose Miguel  Cruz appeals  the
                 ___________

            refusal by  the district  court to depart  downward from  the

            applicable guideline when  it sentenced Cruz to  70 months in

            prison after he pled  guilty to conspiracy to a  drug charge.

            Cruz raises two claims on  appeal.  After carefully reviewing

            the record in this case, we affirm.

                 Cruz's  first claim is that  the district court erred in

            holding  that  it  was  without  authority  to grant  Cruz  a

            downward departure based on his substantial assistance to the

            government.  The government  did not move for a  departure in

            this  case.  The district court properly held that, since the

            government  did  not move  for  a  departure for  assistance,

            pursuant to U.S.S.G.   5K1.1, the court was without authority

            to depart on  that basis.  United States v.  Romolo, 937 F.2d
                                       _____________     ______

            20, 23 (1st Cir. 1991).  

                 Cruz says that he sought his departure under the general

            departure provisions of section 5K2.0.   This court has  said

            in   Romolo  that  it  was  "theoretically  possible,  albeit
                 ______

            unlikely" that  a substantial  assistance departure could  be

            based on  the latter  section and granted  without government
                                                       _______

            consent.  Id. at 25.   But having reviewed the record in this
                      __

            case,  we  think  that  there  is  nothing  even  arguably so

            extraordinary  as to take this  case out of  the general rule

            that a motion by the government is required for a substantial

            assistance departure.

                                         -2-

                 Cruz's  second  claim   is  that   the  district   court

            erroneously believed  that it was without  authority to grant

            him  a downward  departure  based on  the allegedly  "unusual

            circumstances"  of his  case, such  as his  rehabilitation in

            prison,  the   collateral   consequences  of   his   probable

            deportation, and his assistance in persuading a fellow inmate

            to cooperate  with the government.   However, considering the

            context of  the  sentencing hearing  as a  whole, see  United
                                                              ___  ______

            States  v. Morrison, 46 F.3d 127, 130-131 (1st Cir. 1995), we
            ______     ________

            are convinced that the court understood that it possessed the

            authority to depart  on these grounds in an  appropriate case

            but found  the facts peculiar  to Cruz not  so unusual  as to

            justify a downward departure.  Such a judgment, supported  by

            the record in this case, is not reviewable on appeal.  United
                                                                   ______

            States  v. Pierro, 32 F.2d  611, 619 (1st  Cir. 1994); United
            ______     ______                                      ______

            States v. LeBlanc, 24 F.3d 340, 349 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,
            ______    _______                               ____  ______

            115 S. Ct. 250 (1994).

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -3-