United States v. Torres ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1920



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                    YUSUF TORRES,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________

                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
_____________



                                 ____________________



            Janet H. Pumphrey on brief for appellant.
_________________

            Paul  M.  Gagnon,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Jean  B.  Weld,
________________                                   ______________

        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                  February 12, 1997

                                 ____________________



































                 Per Curiam.   Defendant appeals from his sentence on the
__________



            sole  ground that  the district  court  erred "in  failing to



            consider a downward departure  under U.S.S.G.   5K2.0 because



            the 100-to-1  penalty for  crack and powder  cocaine violates



            the equal  protection clause."  He  specifically argues that,



            when   Congress   disapproved  the   Sentencing  Commission's



            proposal  to  equalize  those penalties,  it  violated  equal



            protection.  However, we  already have rejected the substance



            of that argument.  See  United States v. Andrade, 94 F.3d  9,
___  _____________    _______



            14-15 (1st Cir. 1996); United States  v. Singleterry, 29 F.3d
_____________     ___________



            733, 739-41 (1st  Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct.  647 (1994).
____________



            Defendant presents no discernible reason to diverge from that



            precedent.



                 The sentence is affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
________   ___



















































                                         -2-