Court Opinion

ID: 2965249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:37:53.282332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:50.700602
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                         ____________________

No. 97-1669

                            UNITED STATES,

                               Appellee,

                                  v.

                     JOSE ANTONIO NUNEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

                         Defendant, Appellant.
                                   
                         ____________________

             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

            [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]

                         ____________________

                                Before

                         Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                     Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                       and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

                         ____________________

    H. Manuel Hernandez on brief for appellant.
    Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Velez,
Executive Assistant United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa,
Senior Litigation Counsel, and Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant United
States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                         ____________________

                            April 7, 1998
                         ____________________

      Per Curiam.  The district court considered the new motion
    for a departure on the merits and made clear that it had no
    interest in granting a departure.  This discretionary refusal
    to depart is not subject to appellate review.  See United
    States v. Nunez-Rodriguez, 92 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1996), and it
    is therefore unnecessary for us to consider whether a decision
    to depart would have been within the scope of remand and
    allowed under the law of the case doctrine.
        Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.