US v. Hersch
Case Date: 09/05/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 95-1842
|
September 6, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 95-1842 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. RICHARD M. HERSCH, Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Malcolm J. Barach on brief for appellant. _________________ Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Mark W. _________________ ________ Pearlstein, Assistant United States Attorney. __________ ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and ___________ record, we conclude that the sentence imposed was proper for the reasons stated by the district court. We add only the following comments. 1. Contrary to defendant's arguments, the transcript of the sentencing hearing shows that the district court adequately considered all the circumstances. Further, the district court acted within its discretion in determining that no downward departure was warranted and that a sentence at the high end of the applicable range was appropriate. We will not review those determinations. See United States v. ___ ______________ Grandmaison, 77 F.3d 555, 560 (1st Cir. 1996) (discretionary ___________ decision not to depart); United States v. Vega-Encarnacion, _____________ ________________ 914 F.2d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 1990) (discretionary decision to sentence within range), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 977 (1991). ____________ 2. The record provides no support for defendant's assertion that the prosecutor acted in bad faith in declining to file a motion under U.S.S.G. 5K1.1. See Wade v. United ___ ____ ______ States, 504 U.S. 181, 187 (1992); United States v. Catalucci, ______ _____________ _________ 36 F.3d 151, 153 (1st Cir. 1994). Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___ -2- |