United States v. Mateo-Salas ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

        March 6, 1996           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT











                                 ____________________



        No. 95-2128



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                 HILARIO MATEO-SALAS,



                                Defendant, Appellant.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                         FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                  [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Julio Fontanet Maldonado on brief for appellant.
________________________

            Guillermo   Gil,  United  States  Attorney,   Miguel  A.  Pereira,
_______________                               ___________________

        Assistant  U.S.   Attorney,  and  Jose  A.   Quiles  Espinosa,  Senior
___________________________

        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________













































                 Per Curiam.  The  judgment is summarily affirmed.   Loc.
__________



            R. 27.1.



                 1.  As  defendant acknowledges, the court  was not bound



            by  the  version of  facts  attached to  the  plea agreement,



            U.S.S.G.      6B1.4(d),   or  the   plea   agreement  itself.



            Consequently, the  court was  free to consider  an adjustment



            under   2D1.1(b)(1).   As defendant  has neither argued  that



            such  an  adjustment  was  unsupported by  the  evidence  nor



            furnished a  transcript of the evidentiary hearing, we do not



            consider the matter further.



                 2.    Having failed  to show  that  he ever  requested a



            downward departure,  defendant may  not now premise  error on



            the  court's failure to depart.   United States  v. Field, 39
_______________________



            F.3d 15,  21 (1st Cir. 1994),  cert. denied, 115 S.  Ct. 1806
____________



            (1995).



                 Affirmed.
________











































                                         -2-