USCA1 Opinion
May 5, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-2174
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
MARTIN CASTILLO-SORIANO,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Thomas R. Lincoln on brief for appellant. _________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Juan A. Pedrosa, Assistant _____________ _______________
United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation _______________________
Counsel, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Defendant-appellant Martin Castillo- __________
Soriano appeals from the imposition of sentence. He argues
that his sixty-month sentence coincides with the statutory
mandatory minimum sentence for his offense, and that the
district court erred in failing to find that he is eligible,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. 5C1.2, for a
lesser sentence within his guideline sentencing range of 57 -
71 months. We disagree.
As we read the record, the district court was
willing to assume its authority to impose a lesser sentence
but determined that a sixty-month sentence was appropriate
given the statutory factors of deterrence and just
punishment. See 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Under the ___
circumstances, the sentence imposed was a legitimate exercise
of the district court's discretion and is unreviewable. See ___
United States v. Panet-Collazo, 960 F.2d 256, 261 (1st Cir.), _____________ _____________
cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 220 (1992) (observing that appellate ____________
court lacks jurisdiction to review a sentence within the
applicable guideline sentencing range). Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Loc. R. ___
27.1.