-
USCA1 Opinion
May 9, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 93-2172
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
VALERIE JOHNSON,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Thomas A. Grasso on brief for appellant. ________________
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Zechariah Chafee, __________________ ________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Defendant Valerie Johnson was indicted __________
along with three others on various charges relating to a
conspiracy to distribute heroin. She entered a plea of
guilty to two counts of the six-count indictment. The facts
are not disputed. Defendant argues only that the district
court erred in refusing to grant her a downward departure
based on her status as a first-time offender and as single
mother of three minor children. See United States v. Rivera, ___ _____________ ______
994 F.2d 942 (1st Cir. 1993).
Defendant acknowledges in her brief on appeal that
the district court knew that it had the power to effect a
downward departure. She could hardly maintain otherwise as a
review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing reveals
that the judge was well aware of, and correctly applied, the
analysis for such departures set forth in Rivera. See id. at ______ ___ ___
949-50. She argues simply that the district court should
have granted her a downward departure.
"[A]bsent extraordinary circumstances, a criminal
defendant cannot ground an appeal on the district court's
discretionary decision not to undertake a downward departure
from the sentencing range indicated by the guidelines."
United States v. Ruiz, 905 F.2d 499, 508-09 (1st Cir. 1990). ______________ ____
No extraordinary circumstances exist here. Thus, we have no
jurisdiction over this appeal.
This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
See Local Rule 27.1. ___
Document Info
Docket Number: 93-2172
Filed Date: 5/9/1995
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/21/2015