USCA1 Opinion
November 2, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1716
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
FELIX OVALLES-FIGUEREO,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Douglas J. Rose and Jarret & Mitson, Inc. on brief for appellant. _______________ _____________________
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, Margaret E. Curran ___________________ ___________________
and Edwin J. Gale, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for ______________
appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Appellant-defendant Felix Ovalles- ___________
Figuereo appeals on the sole ground that the district court
erred in denying his motion for departure from the applicable
guideline sentencing range pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3553(b).
"It is by now axiomatic that a criminal defendant cannot
ground an appeal on a sentencing court's discretionary
decision not to depart below the guideline sentencing range."
United States v. Pierro, 32 F.3d 611, 619 (1st Cir. 1994), ______________ ______
cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 115 S. Ct. 919 (1995). It is clear _____ ______
from the transcript of the sentencing hearing that the
district court did not misapprehend its power to depart. It
made a discretionary decision that a departure was not
warranted on the facts of this case. We lack jurisdiction to
review such exercises of discretion. Id. Therefore, this ___
appeal is dismissed. See Loc. R. 27.1. _________ ___
-2-