Court Opinion

ID: 2964856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:15.295301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:41.604855
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                ____________________
       No. 96-1704
                                   UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,
                                         v.
                                  STEPHEN V. WOLFF,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                ____________________
                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                ____________________
                                       Before
                              Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                ____________________
            Kevin G. Little on brief for appellant.
            Guillermo  
                      Gil, United States Attorney,    Joseph  
                                                             J.  
                                                                 Frattallone,
       Assistant United States Attorney, and 
                                             Jose A. Quiles
                                                          , Senior Litigation
       Counsel, on brief for appellee.
                                ____________________
                                   AUGUST 5, 1997
                                ____________________

                 Per  
                     Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the parties'
            briefs and the record, and we affirm. Appellant challenges his
            sentence on two grounds. First, he claims the district court
            should have departed downward from the sentence suggested by
            U.S.S.G. S2F1.1 because, appellant claims, he was not the sole
            cause of the victims' losses. Appellant failed to raise this
            issue below, so the failure to depart is not subject to review,
            except for plain error (which does not appear here).   United
            States  
                   v.  
                       Shattuck, 961 F.2d 1012, 1015 (1st Cir. 1992).
            Further, a district court's refusal to depart downward is not
            appealable unless the district court misinterprets the law as
            set out in the Sentencing Guidelines. 
                                                 United States v. Lauzon
                                                                        ,
            938 F.2d 326, 330 (1st Cir. 1991). There is no indication in
            the record that the district court misinterpreted the
            Guidelines, so its decision will stand.
                 Second, appellant contends the district court erred in
            failing to consider his financial circumstances when it ordered
            him to pay restitution to his victims. The Pre-Sentence Report
            did address the appellant's financial circumstances in detail,
            and this is sufficient under our prior decisions.      United
            States v. Savoie, 985 F.2d 612, 619 (1st Cir. 1993).
                 Affirmed.
                                         -2-