
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1666                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                          RUFINO SANTOS, A/K/A EL FILIPINO,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]                                               ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Irma R. Valldejuli on brief for appellant.            __________________            Guillermo  Gil,   United  States   Attorney,  Nelson   Perez-Sosa,            ______________                                ___________________        Assistant United States Attorney,  and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior                                               _______________________        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                  November 26, 1996                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and                 ___________            record, we  find no merit in  defendant's appellate argument,            and so we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.                 Nothing  in the plea agreement or the facts of this case            required  the government  to  move for  a downward  departure            under U.S.S.G.     5K1.1,  and  there was  no  suggestion  of            prosecutorial   misconduct.    In  these  circumstances,  the            district court had no authority to consider such a departure.            See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992).              ___ ____    _____________                 Because the merits of this appeal are easily resolved in            the government's  favor, we  do not address  the government's            challenge  to  our  jurisdiction.   See  Kotler  v.  American                                                ___  ______      ________            Tobacco Co., 926 F.2d 1217, 1221 (1st Cir. 1990).            ___________                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
