[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-