<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 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] 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. 98-1713 <br> <br> UNITED STATES, <br> <br> Appellee, <br> <br> v. <br> <br> LUIS MORO-HERNANDEZ, <br> <br> Defendant, 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> Stahl, Circuit Judge, <br> Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge, <br> and Lipez, Circuit Judge. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> Edgar R. Vega Pabon on brief for appellant. <br> Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles- <br>Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Camille Velez-Rive, <br>Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>October 19, 1998 <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and <br> record, we conclude that the district court properly <br> interpreted U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(d) in calculating defendant's <br> criminal history category. <br> Defendant's prior diversionary disposition was <br> properly "counted as a sentence" under 4A1.2(f). It follows <br> that the diversionary disposition was "a sentence countable <br> under 4A1.2." Therefore the diversionary disposition was a <br> "criminal justice sentence" for purposes of 4A1.1(d), <br> application note 4. We find no merit in defendant's argument <br> that the plain words of the application note should be read <br> otherwise. And because the instant offense was committed while <br> defendant was under that diversionary disposition, the district <br> court properly applied 4A1.1(d) to add two points to <br> defendant's criminal history score. <br> Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.</pre>
</body>
</html>
