United States v. Wolff ( 1997 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1704
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN V. WOLFF,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges.
Kevin G. Little on brief for appellant.
Guillermo
Gil, United States Attorney, Joseph
J.
Frattallone,
Assistant United States Attorney, and
Jose A. Quiles
, Senior Litigation
Counsel, on brief for appellee.
AUGUST 5, 1997
Per
Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the parties'
briefs and the record, and we affirm. Appellant challenges his
sentence on two grounds. First, he claims the district court
should have departed downward from the sentence suggested by
U.S.S.G. S2F1.1 because, appellant claims, he was not the sole
cause of the victims' losses. Appellant failed to raise this
issue below, so the failure to depart is not subject to review,
except for plain error (which does not appear here). United
States
v.
Shattuck, 961 F.2d 1012, 1015 (1st Cir. 1992).
Further, a district court's refusal to depart downward is not
appealable unless the district court misinterprets the law as
set out in the Sentencing Guidelines.
United States v. Lauzon
,
938 F.2d 326, 330 (1st Cir. 1991). There is no indication in
the record that the district court misinterpreted the
Guidelines, so its decision will stand.
Second, appellant contends the district court erred in
failing to consider his financial circumstances when it ordered
him to pay restitution to his victims. The Pre-Sentence Report
did address the appellant's financial circumstances in detail,
and this is sufficient under our prior decisions. United
States v. Savoie, 985 F.2d 612, 619 (1st Cir. 1993).
Affirmed.
-2-