Court Opinion

ID: 2964979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:44.514443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:08.740902
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                ____________________
       No. 97-1754
                                   UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,
                                         v.
                                    REXHEP GASHI,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                ____________________
                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
                    [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                ____________________
                                       Before
                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                          Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                ____________________
            James 
                 L. 
                   Sultan, 
                           Ch
                             arles W. Rankin and Rankin & Sultan on brief for
       appellant.
            Donald 
                  K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Theodore B. Heinrich,
       Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
                                ____________________
                                  November 18, 1997
                                ____________________

                 Per 
                    Curiam. 
                            
                            Upon 
                                 careful review of the briefs and record,
            we 
              find 
                   no 
                      merit in defendant's contentions.  To the contrary,
            as we  read  the sentencing  transcript, the  district  court
            departed by two criminal history categories under U.S.S.G.  S
            4A1.3 and amply explained such departure by reference to  the
            seriousness  of  defendant's  conduct,  his  vacated  Florida
            conviction, and his high  risk of recidivism.  We cannot  say
            that the departure was unreasonable, and we perceive no abuse
            of discretion here.
                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. 
                                         -2-