Court Opinion

ID: 2963944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:48.780738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:05.979411
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        February 20, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1653

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                RICARDO ROMERO MEDINA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr, and Lynch,
                                    Circuit Judges.
                                    ______________

                                 ____________________

            Frank D. Inserni on brief for appellant.
            ________________
            Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney, Jeanette  Mercado-Rios,
            ______________                             ______________________
        Assistant U.S. Attorney, Nelson  Perez-Sosa, Assistant U.S.  Attorney,
                                 __________________
        and  Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation  Counsel, on brief for
             _______________________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  We  have carefully reviewed the  record and
                 __________

            briefs.   We conclude that the sentencing judge's remarks, in

            context, show that  the judge did not  misapprehend his legal

            authority  to  depart  were  extraordinary  family  or  other

            special  circumstances presented.   Instead, the judge made a

            discretionary determination  that the circumstances  were not

            sufficiently unusual to  take the case  out of the  heartland

            and  therefore  did  not  warrant  a  departure.    In  these

            circumstances,  we lack jurisdiction  to review  the decision

            not to  depart.  See  United States v.  Romero, 32 F.3d  641,
                             ___  ________________________

            652-54 (1st  Cir. 1994);  United States v.  LeBlanc, 24  F.3d
                                      _________________________

            340,  348-49 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 250 (1994).
                                     ____________

            Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying defendant's

            late request for a continuance.

                 Appeal dismissed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________________

                                         -2-