
USCA1 Opinion

	




        February 20, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-1653                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                RICARDO ROMERO MEDINA,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr, and Lynch,                                    Circuit Judges.                                    ______________                                 ____________________            Frank D. Inserni on brief for appellant.            ________________            Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney, Jeanette  Mercado-Rios,            ______________                             ______________________        Assistant U.S. Attorney, Nelson  Perez-Sosa, Assistant U.S.  Attorney,                                 __________________        and  Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation  Counsel, on brief for             _______________________        appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  We  have carefully reviewed the  record and                 __________            briefs.   We conclude that the sentencing judge's remarks, in            context, show that  the judge did not  misapprehend his legal            authority  to  depart  were  extraordinary  family  or  other            special  circumstances presented.   Instead, the judge made a            discretionary determination  that the circumstances  were not            sufficiently unusual to  take the case  out of the  heartland            and  therefore  did  not  warrant  a  departure.    In  these            circumstances,  we lack jurisdiction  to review  the decision            not to  depart.  See  United States v.  Romero, 32 F.3d  641,                             ___  ________________________            652-54 (1st  Cir. 1994);  United States v.  LeBlanc, 24  F.3d                                      _________________________            340,  348-49 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 250 (1994).                                     ____________            Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying defendant's            late request for a continuance.                 Appeal dismissed.  Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________________                                         -2-
