May 9, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-2328
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
PEDRO MONTERO,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Circuit Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
Robert D. Oster and Oster & Sawyer on brief for appellant.
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, Margaret E. Curran
and Stephanie S. Browne, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief
for appellee.
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed defendant's
appellate arguments, and, finding no merit in them, we affirm
the sentence imposed by the district court.
Contrary to defendant's first argument, the
sentence enhancement appears entirely proper. The procedural
requirements of 21 U.S.C. 851 were satisfied, and defendant
did nothing to dispute the existence or validity of his prior
felony drug conviction. Although the district court
expressed some initial uncertainty about the government's
motion for enhancement, the court plainly was aware of
defendant's criminal history and sentenced him accordingly.
Neither the law nor the facts support defendant's
other argument that the government should have accepted his
offer of assistance and that his sentence should have been
reduced. Nothing in the plea agreement required the
government to accept defendant's offer of assistance or to
file a motion recommending downward departure. Further,
defendant made no substantial allegation of prosecutorial
misconduct here, but only suggested that the government was
not interested in his offer. In these circumstances, the
sentencing court had no authority to grant a departure or to
review the government's decision not to file a motion. See
Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185 (1992).
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
-3-