United States v. Perez Lopez

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

        September 20, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 94-2134



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                JOSE LUIS PEREZ LOPEZ,



                                Defendant, Appellant.


____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________


____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Ramon M. Gonzalez on brief for appellant.
            _________________

            Guillermo  Gil, United  States  Attorney,  Jorge E.  Vega Pacheco,
            ______________                             ______________________

        Assistant United  States Attorney, Chief, Criminal  Division, and Jose
                                                                          ____

        F. Blanco, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        _________


____________________



                                 ____________________



Per Curiam.    Appellant  pled guilty  to a  single
                      __________



            count indictment  charging him with illegal  reentry into the



            United States in violation of 8  U.S.C.   1326(b)(2).  He was



            sentenced at the low end of the relevant guidelines range, to



            46 months  imprisonment.  He  challenges here only  the trial



            court's  refusal  to  grant  a downward  departure  based  on



            allegedly "extraordinary" family circumstances.



                      The sentencing hearing transcript, however, clearly



            reflects that  the trial  judge's decision  was  taken in  an



            exercise   of  discretion,   and   was  not   based  on   any



            misunderstanding as  to the  court's authority to  consider a



            departure.   Accordingly, the  decision is not  reviewable on



            appeal.  See United States v. Morrison, 46 F.3d 127, 130 (1st
                     ___ _____________    ________



            Cir. 1995); United States v. Romero, 32 F.3d 641, 653-54 (1st
                        _____________    ______



            Cir. 1994). 



                      Appeal dismissed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                             _________   ___


-2-