USCA1 Opinion
February 20, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1653
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
RICARDO ROMERO MEDINA,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr, and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Frank D. Inserni on brief for appellant. ________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jeanette Mercado-Rios, ______________ ______________________
Assistant U.S. Attorney, Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant U.S. Attorney, __________________
and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for _______________________
appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record and __________
briefs. We conclude that the sentencing judge's remarks, in
context, show that the judge did not misapprehend his legal
authority to depart were extraordinary family or other
special circumstances presented. Instead, the judge made a
discretionary determination that the circumstances were not
sufficiently unusual to take the case out of the heartland
and therefore did not warrant a departure. In these
circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to review the decision
not to depart. See United States v. Romero, 32 F.3d 641, ___ ________________________
652-54 (1st Cir. 1994); United States v. LeBlanc, 24 F.3d _________________________
340, 348-49 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 250 (1994). ____________
Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying defendant's
late request for a continuance.
Appeal dismissed. Loc. R. 27.1. ________________
-2-