US v. Mateo-Salas
Case Date: 03/06/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 95-2128
|
March 6, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 95-2128 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. HILARIO MATEO-SALAS, Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Julio Fontanet Maldonado on brief for appellant. ________________________ Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Miguel A. Pereira, _______________ ___________________ Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles Espinosa, Senior ___________________________ Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. The judgment is summarily affirmed. Loc. __________ R. 27.1. 1. As defendant acknowledges, the court was not bound by the version of facts attached to the plea agreement, U.S.S.G. 6B1.4(d), or the plea agreement itself. Consequently, the court was free to consider an adjustment under 2D1.1(b)(1). As defendant has neither argued that such an adjustment was unsupported by the evidence nor furnished a transcript of the evidentiary hearing, we do not consider the matter further. 2. Having failed to show that he ever requested a downward departure, defendant may not now premise error on the court's failure to depart. United States v. Field, 39 _______________________ F.3d 15, 21 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1806 ____________ (1995). Affirmed. ________ -2- |