United States v. Roy
Case Date: 03/12/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 95-1697
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 95-1697 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. DONALD ROY, Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Tina Schneider on brief for appellant. ______________ Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, Margaret D. McGaughey, ________________ ______________________ Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Gregory A. Campbell, Special Assistant ___________________ U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee. ____________________ March 12, 1996 ____________________ Per Curiam. Defendant Donald Roy contends that the ___________ district court erred in failing to make a downward departure under 5K2.13 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (for diminished capacity) and under U.S.S.G. 5K2.16 (for voluntary disclosure). Roy's failure to request a downward departure under either section in the district court forecloses our consideration of the issue. See United States ___ _____________ v. Field, 39 F.3d 15, 21 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, ___ _____ ____________ U.S. ___, 115 S. Ct. 1806 (1995). To the extent Roy is arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not move for a departure under 5K2.13, 5K2.16, the argument is without merit, for there was scant, if any, evidentiary support for a departure. To the extent Roy may be premising an ineffective assistance claim on counsel's failure adequately to develop the record, the matter is not presently reviewable. See United States v. Jadusingh, 12 ___ _____________ _________ F.3d 1162, 1169-70 (1st Cir. 1994). The sentence is summarily affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. _________ ________ ___ -2- |