Court Opinion

ID: 2963914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:21.416314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:17.863353
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        March 6, 1996           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2128

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 HILARIO MATEO-SALAS,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                         FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Julio Fontanet Maldonado on brief for appellant.
            ________________________
            Guillermo   Gil,  United  States  Attorney,   Miguel  A.  Pereira,
            _______________                               ___________________
        Assistant  U.S.   Attorney,  and  Jose  A.   Quiles  Espinosa,  Senior
                                          ___________________________
        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  The  judgment is summarily affirmed.   Loc.
                 __________

            R. 27.1.

                 1.  As  defendant acknowledges, the court  was not bound

            by  the  version of  facts  attached to  the  plea agreement,

            U.S.S.G.      6B1.4(d),   or  the   plea   agreement  itself.

            Consequently, the  court was  free to consider  an adjustment

            under   2D1.1(b)(1).   As defendant  has neither argued  that

            such  an  adjustment  was  unsupported by  the  evidence  nor

            furnished a  transcript of the evidentiary hearing, we do not

            consider the matter further.

                 2.    Having failed  to show  that  he ever  requested a

            downward departure,  defendant may  not now premise  error on

            the  court's failure to depart.   United States  v. Field, 39
                                              _______________________

            F.3d 15,  21 (1st Cir. 1994),  cert. denied, 115 S.  Ct. 1806
                                           ____________

            (1995).

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -2-