Court Opinion

ID: 2965369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:39:13.577598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:43.750740
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                                
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit
                                
                                

No. 97-2379

                          UNITED STATES,

                            Appellee,

                                v.

                         KIRK A. HENSON,

                      Defendant, Appellant.

          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                
                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
                                
[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                

                             Before
                                
                     Torruella, Chief Judge,
                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                

     William Maselli on brief for appellant.
     Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, George T. Dilworthand F. Mark Terison, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief
for appellee.

June 10, 1998

                                
                                
            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and
    record, we perceive no merit in defendant's appellate
    arguments:  
              (1)  The factual findings supporting the suppression
    ruling were not clearly erroneous, notwithstanding defendant's
    contrary view of the circumstances of his inculpatory statement
    to his probation officer.  
              (2)  The district court acted within its considerable
    discretion in limiting defendant's repetitious cross-
    examination.  Any error in allowing into evidence the probation
    officer's memorandum was harmless.  
              (3)  The district court applied appropriate legal
    standards in denying defendant's claims for downward departure. 
    We have no jurisdiction to review the discretionary bases of
    those denials.
              Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.