Court Opinion

ID: 2964795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:31:15.185855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:35.027895
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                ____________________
       No. 96-2199
                                   UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,
                                         v.
                                 LAWRENCE MASTELLO,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                ____________________
                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
                [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                ____________________
                                       Before
                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                ____________________
            Tina Schneider on brief for appellant.
            Donald  
                   K.  
                       Stern, United States Attorney, and     Kevin  
                                                                     O'Regan,
       Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
                                ____________________
                                    July 23, 1997
                                ____________________

                 Per Curiam
                          . Upon careful consideration of the briefs and
            record, we conclude that this appeal does not present a
            substantial question.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. 
                 The 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of
            supervised release was within the district court's authority
            under 18 U.S.C. S 3583(e)(3) and was not inconsistent with
            U.S.S.G. S 7B1.4.  See United 
                                          States v. O'Neil, 11 F.3d 292,
            301 n.11 (1st Cir. 1993) (the S 7B1.4 sentencing table is
            advisory, not mandatory). In our view, the district court's
            statement of reasons for the longer sentence, including
            defendant's repeated disobedience, was sufficient and gave
            adequate weight to the guideline provisions.
                 The sentence is affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
                                         -2-