
USCA1 Opinion

	




          October 19, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                                              ____________________        No. 95-1258                                     UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                               RAMON HERNANDEZ COPLIN,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Benicio  Sanchez   Rivera,  Federal  Public  Defender,  and  Laura            _________________________                                    _____        Maldonado Rodriguez,  Assistant Federal Public Defender,  on brief for        ___________________        appellant.            Guillermo  Gil,  United States  Attorney,  Edwin  O.  Vazquez  and            ______________                             __________________        Nelson  Perez-Sosa, Assistant  United States  Attorneys, on  brief for        __________________        appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per   Curiam.    We  reject  appellant's  arguments                      ____________            essentially  for the  reasons explained  in United  States v.                                                        ______________            Garafano,  61 F.3d 113, 116-17 (1st Cir. 1995).  In remanding            ________            for "resentencing on the premise that the point of  departure            is  a  combined  offense  level  of  13,"  United  States  v.                                                       ______________            Hernandez-Coplin, 24 F.3d 312,  320 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,            ________________                                ____________            115 S. Ct.  378 (1994),  we permitted the  district court  to            forego holding a new sentencing  hearing, for we stated  that            "[r]esentencing  in  this  instance  requires  no  additional            evidence  and is only a small administrative burden."  Id. at                                                                   ___            320.    We see  no  unfairness  or  violation of  appellant's            constitutional rights in our approach.   Appellant had a full            opportunity to present mitigating evidence and arguments when            he  was initially  sentenced.   The technical  nature of  our            remand did not change the nature of the  information relevant            to  sentencing  or  warrant  affording  defendant   a  second            opportunity to repeat, or enlarge  upon, what he had  earlier            presented.                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________                                         -2-
