
USCA1 Opinion

	




          May 9, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-2328                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                    PEDRO MONTERO,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                    [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.                                         _____________                                 ____________________            Robert D. Oster and Oster & Sawyer on brief for appellant.            _______________     ______________            Sheldon  Whitehouse, United  States Attorney,  Margaret E.  Curran            ___________________                            ___________________        and Stephanie S.  Browne, Assistant United States  Attorneys, on brief            ____________________        for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed defendant's                      __________            appellate arguments, and, finding no merit in them, we affirm            the sentence imposed by the district court.                      Contrary   to   defendant's  first   argument,  the            sentence enhancement appears entirely proper.  The procedural            requirements of 21 U.S.C.   851 were satisfied, and defendant            did nothing to dispute the existence or validity of his prior            felony  drug   conviction.    Although  the   district  court            expressed some  initial  uncertainty about  the  government's            motion  for  enhancement,  the  court plainly  was  aware  of            defendant's criminal history and sentenced him accordingly.                        Neither the law  nor the facts  support defendant's            other argument  that the government should  have accepted his            offer of assistance  and that his  sentence should have  been            reduced.    Nothing  in   the  plea  agreement  required  the            government to  accept defendant's  offer of assistance  or to            file a  motion  recommending downward  departure.    Further,            defendant made  no  substantial allegation  of  prosecutorial            misconduct here,  but only suggested that  the government was            not interested in  his offer.   In  these circumstances,  the            sentencing  court had no authority to grant a departure or to            review the government's decision  not to file a motion.   See                                                                      ___            Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185 (1992).              ____    _____________                      Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                      ________   ___                                         -3-
