Carpio Reyes v. United States ( 1992 )

USCA1 Opinion

          December 8, 1992      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ___________________


          No. 92-1831

            


                                 PABLO CARPIO-REYES,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                     Respondent.


                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


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

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                          Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
                                             ______________

                                 ___________________

               Pablo Carpio-Reyes on brief pro se.
               __________________
               Daniel  F.  Lopez-Romo,  United  States  Attorney,  Edwin O.
               ______________________                              ________
          Vazquez, Assistant  United States  Attorney, and Jose  A. Quiles-
          _______                                          ________________
          Espinosa on Motion for Summary Disposition and Memorandum of  Law
          ________
          in Support. 



                                  __________________

                                 __________________ 
















                      Per Curiam.    In view of the Supreme  Court's recent
                      __________

          decision in United States v. Wilson, 112 S. Ct. 1351 (1992), which
                      _______________________

          concluded that it is the Attorney General -- and not the court --

          who decides  whether time  spent  in detention  will be  credited

          towards   a  sentence,   the  district   court   properly  denied

          appellant's motion for credit for time spent on bond.

                      Affirmed. 
                      ________