US v. Romero Medina
Case Date: 02/20/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 95-1653
|
February 20, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 95-1653 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. RICARDO ROMERO MEDINA, Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Selya, Cyr, and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Frank D. Inserni on brief for appellant. ________________ Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jeanette Mercado-Rios, ______________ ______________________ Assistant U.S. Attorney, Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant U.S. Attorney, __________________ and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for _______________________ appellee. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record and __________ briefs. We conclude that the sentencing judge's remarks, in context, show that the judge did not misapprehend his legal authority to depart were extraordinary family or other special circumstances presented. Instead, the judge made a discretionary determination that the circumstances were not sufficiently unusual to take the case out of the heartland and therefore did not warrant a departure. In these circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to review the decision not to depart. See United States v. Romero, 32 F.3d 641, ___ ________________________ 652-54 (1st Cir. 1994); United States v. LeBlanc, 24 F.3d _________________________ 340, 348-49 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 250 (1994). ____________ Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying defendant's late request for a continuance. Appeal dismissed. Loc. R. 27.1. ________________ -2- |