United States v. Jiminez ( 1995 )

USCA1 Opinion

          November 29, 1995

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT





                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1457



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                   JOAQUIN JIMENEZ,



                                Defendant, Appellant.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________

                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________



                                 ____________________



            Thomas G. Briody on brief for appellant.
________________

            Sheldon Whitehouse,  United States Attorney,  and Craig N.  Moore,
__________________                                _______________

        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________







































































































































































                      Per Curiam.  We  have carefully reviewed the briefs
__________



            and record.  The  district court's remarks, read as  a whole,



            indicate that  regardless whether defendant's  state criminal



            offenses were  concentrated or spread out, the  court was not



            inclined  to  exercise  its  discretion  to  depart  downward



            because  the  fact remained  that  defendant  had engaged  in



            serious  misconduct.   Consequently,  we  reject  defendant's



            argument  that he was  sentenced on  the basis  of materially



            inaccurate information.



                      The judgment is summarily affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
________



































































                                         -2-