United States v. Romero Medina

Opinion

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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-