United States v. Jiminez

November 29, 1995
                    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                         

No. 95-1457 

                        UNITED STATES,

                          Appellee,

                              v.

                       JOAQUIN JIMENEZ,

                    Defendant, Appellant.

                                         

         APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

               FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

    [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                                                    

                                         

                            Before

                    Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                                      
                Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                                        
                  and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                                      

                                         

Thomas G. Briody on brief for appellant.
                            
Sheldon Whitehouse,  United States Attorney,  and Craig N.  Moore,
                                                                             
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                         

                                         


          Per Curiam.  We  have carefully reviewed the briefs
                                

and record.  The  district court's remarks, read as  a whole,

indicate that  regardless whether defendant's  state criminal

offenses were  concentrated or spread out, the  court was not

inclined  to  exercise  its  discretion  to  depart  downward

because  the  fact remained  that  defendant  had engaged  in

serious  misconduct.   Consequently,  we  reject  defendant's

argument  that he was  sentenced on  the basis  of materially

inaccurate information.

          The judgment is summarily affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                                                        

                             -2-