Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Rogers, 1st Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the ruling of the District Court of Rhode Island in the case of the United States v. Douglas Rogers. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the district court's discretionary decision not to depart from the sentencing guidelines. Additionally, the appeals court determined that the district court's ruling was consistent with precedent and that the district court had found that it would not grant a departure even if it was authorized to do so based on the specific facts of the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-11-05 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 98-2162

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the ruling of the District Court of Rhode Island in the case of the United States v. Douglas Rogers. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the district court's discretionary decision not to depart from the sentencing guidelines. Additionally, the appeals court determined that the district court's ruling was consistent with precedent and that the district court had found that it would not grant a departure even if it was authorized to do so based on the specific facts of the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views3 pages

    United States v. Rogers, 1st Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the ruling of the District Court of Rhode Island in the case of the United States v. Douglas Rogers. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the district court's discretionary decision not to depart from the sentencing guidelines. Additionally, the appeals court determined that the district court's ruling was consistent with precedent and that the district court had found that it would not grant a departure even if it was authorized to do so based on the specific facts of the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    USCA1 Opinion

    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]


    United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit

    No. 98-2162

    UNITED STATES,

    Plaintiff, Appellee,

    v.

    DOUGLAS ROGERS,

    Defendant, Appellant.

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]

    Before

    Torruella, Chief Judge,


    Stahl and Lipez, Circuit Judges.

    Brendan G. King and George F. Gormley, P.C. on brief for


    appellant.
    Margaret E. Curran, United States Attorney, Donald C. Lockhart
    and Zechariah Chafee, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief
    for appellee.

    November 4, 1999

    Per Curiam.

    Upon careful review of the briefs and

    record, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to review


    the district court's discretionary refusal to depart from the
    sentencing guideline range.

    See United States v. Reeder, 170

    F.3d 93, 109 (1st Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 68 U.S.L.W. 3079
    (U.S. Oct. 4, 1999).

    Further, the district court's decision is

    not inconsistent with, or undermined by, the ruling in United


    States v. Perez, 160 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 1998), because the
    district court determined that, on the facts of this case, it
    would not grant a departure even were it authorized to do so.
    Affirmed.

    See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.

    You might also like