United States v. Santos ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1666





                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                          RUFINO SANTOS, A/K/A EL FILIPINO,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Irma R. Valldejuli on brief for appellant.
__________________

            Guillermo  Gil,   United  States   Attorney,  Nelson   Perez-Sosa,
______________                                ___________________

        Assistant United States Attorney,  and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
_______________________

        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                  November 26, 1996

                                 ____________________































                 Per  Curiam.   Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and
___________



            record, we  find no merit in  defendant's appellate argument,



            and so we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.



                 Nothing  in the plea agreement or the facts of this case



            required  the government  to  move for  a downward  departure



            under U.S.S.G.     5K1.1,  and  there was  no  suggestion  of



            prosecutorial   misconduct.    In  these  circumstances,  the



            district court had no authority to consider such a departure.



            See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992).
___ ____    _____________



                 Because the merits of this appeal are easily resolved in



            the government's  favor, we  do not address  the government's



            challenge  to  our  jurisdiction.   See  Kotler  v.  American
___  ______      ________



            Tobacco Co., 926 F.2d 1217, 1221 (1st Cir. 1990).
___________



                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
________   ___



















































                                         -2-