USCA1 Opinion
May 9, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-2328
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
PEDRO MONTERO,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Boudin, Circuit Judge, _____________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge. _____________
____________________
Robert D. Oster and Oster & Sawyer on brief for appellant. _______________ ______________
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, Margaret E. Curran ___________________ ___________________
and Stephanie S. Browne, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief ____________________
for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed defendant's __________
appellate arguments, and, finding no merit in them, we affirm
the sentence imposed by the district court.
Contrary to defendant's first argument, the
sentence enhancement appears entirely proper. The procedural
requirements of 21 U.S.C. 851 were satisfied, and defendant
did nothing to dispute the existence or validity of his prior
felony drug conviction. Although the district court
expressed some initial uncertainty about the government's
motion for enhancement, the court plainly was aware of
defendant's criminal history and sentenced him accordingly.
Neither the law nor the facts support defendant's
other argument that the government should have accepted his
offer of assistance and that his sentence should have been
reduced. Nothing in the plea agreement required the
government to accept defendant's offer of assistance or to
file a motion recommending downward departure. Further,
defendant made no substantial allegation of prosecutorial
misconduct here, but only suggested that the government was
not interested in his offer. In these circumstances, the
sentencing court had no authority to grant a departure or to
review the government's decision not to file a motion. See ___
Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185 (1992). ____ _____________
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___
-3-