<head>
<title>USCA1 Opinion</title>
<style type="text/css" media="screen, projection, print">
<!--
@import url(/css/dflt_styles.css);
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p align=center>
</p><br>
<pre> [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] <br> United States Court of Appeals <br> For the First Circuit <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>No. 98-1165 <br> <br> UNITED STATES, <br> <br> Appellee, <br> <br> v. <br> <br> LUIS LUHRING-BADILLO, <br> <br> Plaintiff, Appellant. <br> <br> <br> <br> APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT <br> <br> FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO <br> <br> [Hon. Daniel R. Domnguez, U.S. District Judge] <br> <br> <br> <br> Before <br> <br> Torruella, Chief Judge, <br> Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> Luis Rafael Rivera on brief for appellant. <br> Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Camille Velez-Rive, <br>Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, <br>Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>July 27, 1998 <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and <br> record, we are convinced that the district court understood its <br> authority to depart and that it found no grounds to do so in <br> this case. In particular, upon a thorough reading of the <br> sentencing proceedings as a whole, it appears that the district <br> court raised sua sponte the possibility of a departure for <br> what it termed "extraordinary acceptance of responsibility," <br> and, after discussion with counsel, decided that no departure <br> was warranted under either U.S.S.G. 5K2.0 or U.S.S.G. <br> 5K2.16. See United States v. Bennett, 60 F.3d 902, 905 (1st <br> Cir. 1995). Further, we read the district court's concluding <br> comments only as again rejecting the mental condition departure <br> requested by defendant and as determining generally that <br> defendant's case did not present any extraordinary <br> circumstances warranting departure. Such a discretionary <br> determination is not subject to appellate review. See United <br> States v. Grandmaison, 77 F.3d 555, 560 (1st Cir. 1996). <br> Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.</pre>
</body>
</html>
