Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Ovalles-Figuereo, 95-1716 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 95-1716 Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 02, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Defendant, Appellant., _______________ _____________________, Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, Margaret E. Curran, ___________________ ___________________, and Edwin J. Gale, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for, ______________, appellee.appeal is dismissed.
USCA1 Opinion









November 2, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 95-1716

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

FELIX OVALLES-FIGUEREO,

Defendant, Appellant.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND


[Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

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

____________________

Douglas J. Rose and Jarret & Mitson, Inc. on brief for appellant. _______________ _____________________
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, Margaret E. Curran ___________________ ___________________
and Edwin J. Gale, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for ______________
appellee.


____________________


____________________


















































































Per Curiam. Appellant-defendant Felix Ovalles- ___________

Figuereo appeals on the sole ground that the district court

erred in denying his motion for departure from the applicable

guideline sentencing range pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3553(b).

"It is by now axiomatic that a criminal defendant cannot

ground an appeal on a sentencing court's discretionary

decision not to depart below the guideline sentencing range."

United States v. Pierro, 32 F.3d 611, 619 (1st Cir. 1994), ______________ ______

cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 115 S. Ct. 919 (1995). It is clear _____ ______

from the transcript of the sentencing hearing that the

district court did not misapprehend its power to depart. It

made a discretionary decision that a departure was not

warranted on the facts of this case. We lack jurisdiction to

review such exercises of discretion. Id. Therefore, this ___

appeal is dismissed. See Loc. R. 27.1. _________ ___























-2-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer