Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Rogers, 98-2162 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 98-2162 Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 05, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: , Margaret E. Curran, United States Attorney, Donald C. Lockhart, and Zechariah Chafee, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief, for appellee. Further, the district court's decision is, not inconsistent with, or undermined by, the ruling in United, States v. Perez, 160 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.
USCA1 Opinion


       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit





No. 98-2162

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

DOUGLAS ROGERS,

Defendant, Appellant.



APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]



Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,
Stahl and Lipez, Circuit Judges.





Brendan G. King and George F. Gormley, P.C. on brief for
appellant.
Margaret E. Curran, United States Attorney, Donald C. Lockhart
and Zechariah Chafee, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief
for appellee.





November 4, 1999





Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and
record, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to review
the district court's discretionary refusal to depart from the
sentencing guideline range. See United States v. Reeder, 170
F.3d 93, 109 (1st Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 68 U.S.L.W. 3079
(U.S. Oct. 4, 1999). Further, the district court's decision is
not inconsistent with, or undermined by, the ruling in United
States v. Perez, 160 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 1998), because the
district court determined that, on the facts of this case, it
would not grant a departure even were it authorized to do so.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
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