US v. Ovalles-Figuereo
Case Date: 11/02/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 95-1716
|
November 2, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 95-1716 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. FELIX OVALLES-FIGUEREO, Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Douglas J. Rose and Jarret & Mitson, Inc. on brief for appellant. _______________ _____________________ Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, Margaret E. Curran ___________________ ___________________ and Edwin J. Gale, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for ______________ appellee. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. Appellant-defendant Felix Ovalles- ___________ Figuereo appeals on the sole ground that the district court erred in denying his motion for departure from the applicable guideline sentencing range pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3553(b). "It is by now axiomatic that a criminal defendant cannot ground an appeal on a sentencing court's discretionary decision not to depart below the guideline sentencing range." United States v. Pierro, 32 F.3d 611, 619 (1st Cir. 1994), ______________ ______ cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 115 S. Ct. 919 (1995). It is clear _____ ______ from the transcript of the sentencing hearing that the district court did not misapprehend its power to depart. It made a discretionary decision that a departure was not warranted on the facts of this case. We lack jurisdiction to review such exercises of discretion. Id. Therefore, this ___ appeal is dismissed. See Loc. R. 27.1. _________ ___ -2- |