Court Opinion

ID: 2964031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:19:16.747422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:17.971082
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          May 9, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2328

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    PEDRO MONTERO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                    [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Robert D. Oster and Oster & Sawyer on brief for appellant.
            _______________     ______________
            Sheldon  Whitehouse, United  States Attorney,  Margaret E.  Curran
            ___________________                            ___________________
        and Stephanie S.  Browne, Assistant United States  Attorneys, on brief
            ____________________
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed defendant's
                      __________

            appellate arguments, and, finding no merit in them, we affirm

            the sentence imposed by the district court.

                      Contrary   to   defendant's  first   argument,  the

            sentence enhancement appears entirely proper.  The procedural

            requirements of 21 U.S.C.   851 were satisfied, and defendant

            did nothing to dispute the existence or validity of his prior

            felony  drug   conviction.    Although  the   district  court

            expressed some  initial  uncertainty about  the  government's

            motion  for  enhancement,  the  court plainly  was  aware  of

            defendant's criminal history and sentenced him accordingly.  

                      Neither the law  nor the facts  support defendant's

            other argument  that the government should  have accepted his

            offer of assistance  and that his  sentence should have  been

            reduced.    Nothing  in   the  plea  agreement  required  the

            government to  accept defendant's  offer of assistance  or to

            file a  motion  recommending downward  departure.    Further,

            defendant made  no  substantial allegation  of  prosecutorial

            misconduct here,  but only suggested that  the government was

            not interested in  his offer.   In  these circumstances,  the

            sentencing  court had no authority to grant a departure or to

            review the government's decision  not to file a motion.   See
                                                                      ___

            Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185 (1992).  
            ____    _____________

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

                                         -3-