United States v. Roy

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 95-1697 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. DONALD ROY, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge] Before Torruella, Chief Judge, Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. Tina Schneider on brief for appellant. Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Gregory A. Campbell, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee. March 12, 1996 Per Curiam. Defendant Donald Roy contends that the district court erred in failing to make a downward departure under 5K2.13 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (for diminished capacity) and under U.S.S.G. 5K2.16 (for voluntary disclosure). Roy's failure to request a downward departure under either section in the district court forecloses our consideration of the issue. See United States v. Field, 39 F.3d 15, 21 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied, U.S. , 115 S. Ct. 1806 (1995). To the extent Roy is arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not move for a departure under 5K2.13, 5K2.16, the argument is without merit, for there was scant, if any, evidentiary support for a departure. To the extent Roy may be premising an ineffective assistance claim on counsel's failure adequately to develop the record, the matter is not presently reviewable. See United States v. Jadusingh, 12 F.3d 1162, 1169-70 (1st Cir. 1994). The sentence is summarily affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. -2-