Court Opinion

ID: 2965107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:35:31.032259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:32.250924
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 97-2203

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  RICARDO GONZALEZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Charles W. Rankin and Rankin & Sultan on brief for appellant.
            _________________     _______________
            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and William F. Sinnott,
            ________________                               __________________
        Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  February 20, 1998
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   We  perceive  no  error  in the  district
                 ___________

            court's adherence to our decision in  United States v. Clase-
                                                  _____________    ______

            Espinal, 115 F.3d 1054, 1059-60 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 118
            _______                                     ____________

            S.Ct.  384 (1997), and defendant offers no substantial reason

            to revisit or distinguish that  decision.  In all events, we,

            as a panel, are bound by the panel decision in Clase-Espinal.
                                                           _____________

            See, e.g.,  United States v.  Wogan, 938 F.2d 1446  (1st Cir.
            ___  ____   _____________     _____

            1991).

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

                                         -2-