
USCA1 Opinion

	




        March 6, 1996           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-2128                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                 HILARIO MATEO-SALAS,                                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,                                           ___________                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________            Julio Fontanet Maldonado on brief for appellant.            ________________________            Guillermo   Gil,  United  States  Attorney,   Miguel  A.  Pereira,            _______________                               ___________________        Assistant  U.S.   Attorney,  and  Jose  A.   Quiles  Espinosa,  Senior                                          ___________________________        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  The  judgment is summarily affirmed.   Loc.                 __________            R. 27.1.                 1.  As  defendant acknowledges, the court  was not bound            by  the  version of  facts  attached to  the  plea agreement,            U.S.S.G.      6B1.4(d),   or  the   plea   agreement  itself.            Consequently, the  court was  free to consider  an adjustment            under   2D1.1(b)(1).   As defendant  has neither argued  that            such  an  adjustment  was  unsupported by  the  evidence  nor            furnished a  transcript of the evidentiary hearing, we do not            consider the matter further.                 2.    Having failed  to show  that  he ever  requested a            downward departure,  defendant may  not now premise  error on            the  court's failure to depart.   United States  v. Field, 39                                              _______________________            F.3d 15,  21 (1st Cir. 1994),  cert. denied, 115 S.  Ct. 1806                                           ____________            (1995).                 Affirmed.                 ________                                         -2-
