US v. Simmons
Case Date: 08/14/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-1436
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-1436 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. JEMAL MAURICE SIMMONS, Defendant, Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ George M. Hepner, III on brief for appellant. _____________________ Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and Helene Kazanjian, _________________ ________________ Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion and Incorporated Memorandum to Dismiss Appeal Pursuant to Local Rule 27.1, for appellee. ____________________ August 14, 1996 ____________________ Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and ___________ record, it appears that no substantial question is presented in this appeal and that summary disposition is appropriate. Defendant first argues that, in selecting a sentence within the guideline range, the district court should have given fuller consideration to defendant's alleged cooperation with the government. We may not review that argument because we have no jurisdiction to consider an appeal from sentence that was within the applicable guideline range and was correctly determined. United States v. Tucker, 892 F.2d 8, _____________ ______ 10 (1st Cir. 1989). Here, the transcript of the sentencing hearing indicates that defendant had a full opportunity to present his legal and factual position, and that the district court considered that position, but was not persuaded. Having failed to request an evidentiary hearing below, defendant now may not properly complain that further evidence should have been taken. We also reject defendant's constitutional challenge to disparate sentences imposed for crack, as compared with powder, cocaine crimes. We perceive no reason to depart here from the existing precedent on that issue, United States v. _____________ Singleterry, 29 F.3d 733, 740 (1st Cir. 1994). Further, we ___________ perceive no need for additional argument following the decision announced in United States v. Armstrong, 116 S.Ct. _____________ _________ 1480 (1996). Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___ -3- |