Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Simmons, 96-1436 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 96-1436 Visitors: 1
Filed: Aug. 14, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: ___________, Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges._________________ ________________, Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion and Incorporated, Memorandum to Dismiss Appeal Pursuant to Local Rule 27.1, for, appellee.decision announced in United States v. Armstrong, 116 S.Ct.
USCA1 Opinion












[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________


No. 96-1436

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

JEMAL MAURICE SIMMONS,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

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

____________________

George M. Hepner, III on brief for appellant. _____________________
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and Helene Kazanjian, _________________ ________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion and Incorporated
Memorandum to Dismiss Appeal Pursuant to Local Rule 27.1, for
appellee.


____________________

August 14, 1996
____________________


















Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and ___________

record, it appears that no substantial question is presented

in this appeal and that summary disposition is appropriate.

Defendant first argues that, in selecting a sentence

within the guideline range, the district court should have

given fuller consideration to defendant's alleged cooperation

with the government. We may not review that argument because

we have no jurisdiction to consider an appeal from sentence

that was within the applicable guideline range and was

correctly determined. United States v. Tucker, 892 F.2d 8, _____________ ______

10 (1st Cir. 1989). Here, the transcript of the sentencing

hearing indicates that defendant had a full opportunity to

present his legal and factual position, and that the district

court considered that position, but was not persuaded.

Having failed to request an evidentiary hearing below,

defendant now may not properly complain that further evidence

should have been taken.

We also reject defendant's constitutional challenge to

disparate sentences imposed for crack, as compared with

powder, cocaine crimes. We perceive no reason to depart here

from the existing precedent on that issue, United States v. _____________

Singleterry, 29 F.3d 733, 740 (1st Cir. 1994). Further, we ___________

perceive no need for additional argument following the

decision announced in United States v. Armstrong, 116 S.Ct. _____________ _________

1480 (1996).














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



















































-3-






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