United States v. Luhring-Badillo

First Circuit

United States v. Luhring-Badillo

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJuly 27, 1998

Docket98-1165

StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Luhring-Badillo (United States v. Luhring-Badillo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Luhring-Badillo, (1st Cir. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

<head>

<title>USCA1 Opinion</title>

<!--

@import url(/css/dflt_styles.css);

-->

</style>

</head>

<body>

<pre> [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 98-1165 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. LUIS LUHRING-BADILLO, Plaintiff, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Daniel R. Domnguez, U.S. District Judge] Before Torruella, Chief Judge, Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges. Luis Rafael Rivera on brief for appellant. Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Camille Velez-Rive, Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee. July 27, 1998 Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we are convinced that the district court understood its authority to depart and that it found no grounds to do so in this case. In particular, upon a thorough reading of the sentencing proceedings as a whole, it appears that the district court raised sua sponte the possibility of a departure for what it termed "extraordinary acceptance of responsibility," and, after discussion with counsel, decided that no departure was warranted under either U.S.S.G. 5K2.0 or U.S.S.G. 5K2.16. See United States v. Bennett, 60 F.3d 902, 905 (1st Cir. 1995). Further, we read the district court's concluding comments only as again rejecting the mental condition departure requested by defendant and as determining generally that defendant's case did not present any extraordinary circumstances warranting departure. Such a discretionary determination is not subject to appellate review. See United States v. Grandmaison, 77 F.3d 555, 560 (1st Cir. 1996). Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.</pre>

</body>

</html>

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

<head>

<title>USCA1 Opinion</title>

<!--

@import url(/css/dflt_styles.css);

-->

</style>

</head>

<body>

<pre> [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 98-1165 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. LUIS LUHRING-BADILLO, Plaintiff, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Daniel R. Domnguez, U.S. District Judge] Before Torruella, Chief Judge, Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges. Luis Rafael Rivera on brief for appellant. Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Camille Velez-Rive, Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee. July 27, 1998 Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we are convinced that the district court understood its authority to depart and that it found no grounds to do so in this case. In particular, upon a thorough reading of the sentencing proceedings as a whole, it appears that the district court raised sua sponte the possibility of a departure for what it termed "extraordinary acceptance of responsibility," and, after discussion with counsel, decided that no departure was warranted under either U.S.S.G. 5K2.0 or U.S.S.G. 5K2.16. See United States v. Bennett, 60 F.3d 902, 905 (1st Cir. 1995). Further, we read the district court's concluding comments only as again rejecting the mental condition departure requested by defendant and as determining generally that defendant's case did not present any extraordinary circumstances warranting departure. Such a discretionary determination is not subject to appellate review. See United States v. Grandmaison, 77 F.3d 555, 560 (1st Cir. 1996). Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.</pre>

</body>

</html>

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

United States v. Luhring-Badillo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-luhring-badillo-ca1-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack