
USCA1 Opinion

	




        September 6, 1996       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1189                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                               HUMBERTO PRADA-CORDERO,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________            Ramon Garcia on brief for appellant.            ____________            Guillermo  Gil,   United  States   Attorney,  Nelson   Perez-Sosa,            ______________                                ___________________        Assistant  United States  Attorney,  Jose  A. Quiles-Espinosa,  Senior                                             ________________________        Litigation  Counsel,  and  Edwin  O.  Vazquez-Berrios,  Deputy  Chief,                                   __________________________        Criminal Division, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and                 ___________            record, it  clearly appears  that no substantial  question is            presented and that summary disposition is appropriate.                   Defendant's drug sentence  was within the  legislatively            authorized  sentencing range  for  that offense,  and so  the            subsequent sentence for failure  to appear did not constitute            double jeopardy,  even though  the drug sentence  included an            enhancement for obstruction  of justice based on  defendant's            failure  to appear.  See  United States v.  Jernigan, 60 F.3d                                 ___  _____________     ________            562, 564-65 (9th Cir. 1995).                   Further,  the total of the two sentences imposed for the            drug offense and  the failure to appear  offense (113 months)            was within  the applicable  sentencing guideline  range which            would have applied if the two sentences had been imposed in a            single  proceeding (97 to 121 months).   Therefore, the total            sentence  was  consistent  with  the  sentencing  guidelines,            including  U.S.S.G.     2J1.6  Application Note  3 and  3C1.1            Application Note  6, and there was no double counting problem            here.   Cf. United States v. Agoro,  996 F.2d 1288, 1291 (1st                    ___ _____________    _____            Cir. 1993).                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
