
<head>

<title>USCA1 Opinion</title>



	<style type="text/css" media="screen, projection, print">



		<!--

		@import url(/css/dflt_styles.css);

		-->

	</style>

</head>

<body>

<p align=center>

</p><br>

<pre>      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] <br>                 United States Court of Appeals <br>                     For the First Circuit <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>No. 98-1165 <br> <br>                          UNITED STATES, <br> <br>                            Appellee, <br> <br>                                v. <br> <br>                      LUIS LUHRING-BADILLO, <br> <br>                      Plaintiff, Appellant. <br> <br> <br> <br>           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT <br> <br>                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO <br> <br>         [Hon. Daniel R. Domnguez, U.S. District Judge] <br> <br> <br> <br>                              Before <br> <br>                     Torruella, Chief Judge, <br>               Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges. <br>                                 <br>                                 <br> <br> <br>     Luis Rafael Rivera on brief for appellant. <br>     Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Camille Velez-Rive, <br>Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, <br>Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>July 27, 1998 <br> <br> <br>                                 <br> <br> <br>                                               Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and <br>    record, we are convinced that the district court understood its <br>    authority to depart and that it found no grounds to do so in <br>    this case.  In particular, upon a thorough reading of the <br>    sentencing proceedings as a whole, it appears that the district <br>    court raised sua sponte the possibility of a departure for  <br>    what it termed "extraordinary acceptance of responsibility," <br>    and, after discussion with counsel, decided that no departure <br>    was warranted under either U.S.S.G.  5K2.0 or U.S.S.G.  <br>    5K2.16.  See United States v. Bennett, 60 F.3d 902, 905 (1st <br>    Cir. 1995).  Further, we read the district court's concluding <br>    comments only as again rejecting the mental condition departure <br>    requested by defendant and as determining generally that <br>    defendant's case did not present any extraordinary <br>    circumstances warranting departure.  Such a discretionary <br>    determination is not subject to appellate review.  See United <br>    States v. Grandmaison, 77 F.3d 555, 560 (1st Cir. 1996). <br>              Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.</pre>

</body>

</html>

