United States v. Franklyn Rivera-Santiago , 11 F. App'x 9 ( 2001 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 98-2191
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
FRANKLYN RIVERA-SANTIAGO,
a/k/a FRANKY,
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
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Selya, Circuit Judge.
Evelyn Quinones Carrasquillo on brief for appellant.
June 6, 2001
Per Curiam. Franklyn Rivera Santiago appeals the
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to various narcotics-
related offenses. Counsel for Rivera has submitted an Anders
brief and a motion to withdraw, asserting that there are no
meritorious issues to be raised on appeal. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738; 1st Cir. Loc. R. 46.4(a)(4). Rivera
has not filed a separate brief, although he has been informed of
his right to do so. After carefully reviewing the Anders brief
and transcripts of the plea colloquy and sentencing hearing, we
agree with counsel that the appeal presents no issue having an
arguable basis in law or fact.
Rivera was initially tried and convicted along with a
co-defendant, Edwin Alamo. Those convictions were reversed on
appeal by this court, and prior to a second trial, Rivera pled
guilty to one count of attempting to possess narcotics with
intent to distribute. The district court, noting Rivera's
status as a police officer, sentenced Rivera at the high end of
the applicable guideline imprisonment range. In contrast,
Alamo, who also pled guilty and who was assigned the same base-
offense level as Rivera, was apparently sentenced at the low end
of the guideline range. On appeal, Rivera contends that since
he was less culpable than Alamo, he also should have been
-2-
sentenced at the low end of the guideline range. It is well
settled, however, that we have no jurisdiction to review a
sentence within the applicable guideline range. United States
v. Brennan, 994 F.2d 918, 929-30 (1st Cir. 1993).
Affirmed.
-3-