
USCA1 Opinion

	




          May 5, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-2174                                     UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                               MARTIN CASTILLO-SORIANO,                                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,                                           ___________                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Thomas R. Lincoln on brief for appellant.            _________________            Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Juan A. Pedrosa,  Assistant            _____________                          _______________        United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation                                    _______________________        Counsel, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   Defendant-appellant Martin  Castillo-                      __________            Soriano appeals from  the imposition of sentence.   He argues            that his  sixty-month sentence coincides  with the  statutory            mandatory  minimum sentence  for  his offense,  and that  the            district  court erred in failing to find that he is eligible,            pursuant to 18 U.S.C.    3553(f) and U.S.S.G.   5C1.2,  for a            lesser sentence within his guideline sentencing range of 57 -            71 months.  We disagree.                      As  we  read the  record,  the  district court  was            willing to assume its  authority to impose a  lesser sentence            but  determined that  a sixty-month sentence  was appropriate            given   the  statutory   factors  of   deterrence   and  just            punishment.     See   18  U.S.C.      3553(a).     Under  the                            ___            circumstances, the sentence imposed was a legitimate exercise            of the district court's discretion and is unreviewable.   See                                                                      ___            United States v. Panet-Collazo, 960 F.2d 256, 261 (1st Cir.),            _____________    _____________            cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 220 (1992) (observing that appellate            ____________            court  lacks jurisdiction  to  review a  sentence within  the            applicable  guideline  sentencing range).    Accordingly, the            appeal  is dismissed for lack  of jurisdiction.   See Loc. R.                                                              ___            27.1.
