September 6, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1189
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
HUMBERTO PRADA-CORDERO,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Ramon Garcia on brief for appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Nelson Perez-Sosa,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
Litigation Counsel, and Edwin O. Vazquez-Berrios, Deputy Chief,
Criminal Division, on brief for appellee.
Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and
record, it clearly appears that no substantial question is
presented and that summary disposition is appropriate.
Defendant's drug sentence was within the legislatively
authorized sentencing range for that offense, and so the
subsequent sentence for failure to appear did not constitute
double jeopardy, even though the drug sentence included an
enhancement for obstruction of justice based on defendant's
failure to appear. See United States v. Jernigan, 60 F.3d
562, 564-65 (9th Cir. 1995).
Further, the total of the two sentences imposed for the
drug offense and the failure to appear offense (113 months)
was within the applicable sentencing guideline range which
would have applied if the two sentences had been imposed in a
single proceeding (97 to 121 months). Therefore, the total
sentence was consistent with the sentencing guidelines,
including U.S.S.G. 2J1.6 Application Note 3 and 3C1.1
Application Note 6, and there was no double counting problem
here. Cf. United States v. Agoro, 996 F.2d 1288, 1291 (1st
Cir. 1993).
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
-2-