United States, Appellee, v. Martin Castillo-soriano, Defendant, Appellant, 53 F.3d 327 (1st Cir. 1995)Annotate this Case
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge ]
Thomas R. Lincoln on brief for appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Juan A. Pedrosa, Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.
Before TORRUELLA, Chief Judge, SELYA and STAHL, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-appellant Martin Castillo- Soriano appeals from the imposition of sentence. He argues that his sixty-month sentence coincides with the statutory mandatory minimum sentence for his offense, and that the district court erred in failing to find that he is eligible, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. Sec. 5C1.2, for a lesser sentence within his guideline sentencing range of 57-71 months. We disagree.
As we read the record, the district court was willing to assume its authority to impose a lesser sentence but determined that a sixty-month sentence was appropriate given the statutory factors of deterrence and just punishment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Under the circumstances, the sentence imposed was a legitimate exercise of the district court's discretion and is unreviewable. See United States v. Panet- Collazo, 960 F.2d 256, 261 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 220 (1992) (observing that appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a sentence within the applicable guideline sentencing range). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Loc. R. 27.1.