United States v. Prada-Cordero ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

        September 6, 1996       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1189



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                               HUMBERTO PRADA-CORDERO,



                                Defendant, Appellant.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Ramon Garcia on brief for appellant.
____________

            Guillermo  Gil,   United  States   Attorney,  Nelson   Perez-Sosa,
______________                                ___________________

        Assistant  United States  Attorney,  Jose  A. Quiles-Espinosa,  Senior
________________________

        Litigation  Counsel,  and  Edwin  O.  Vazquez-Berrios,  Deputy  Chief,
__________________________

        Criminal Division, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________

































                 Per  Curiam.   Upon  careful  review of  the  briefs and
___________



            record, it  clearly appears  that no substantial  question is



            presented and that summary disposition is appropriate.



                 Defendant's drug sentence  was within the  legislatively



            authorized  sentencing range  for  that offense,  and so  the



            subsequent sentence for failure  to appear did not constitute



            double jeopardy,  even though  the drug sentence  included an



            enhancement for obstruction  of justice based on  defendant's



            failure  to appear.  See  United States v.  Jernigan, 60 F.3d
___  _____________     ________



            562, 564-65 (9th Cir. 1995).



                 Further,  the total of the two sentences imposed for the



            drug offense and  the failure to appear  offense (113 months)



            was within  the applicable  sentencing guideline  range which



            would have applied if the two sentences had been imposed in a



            single  proceeding (97 to 121 months).   Therefore, the total



            sentence  was  consistent  with  the  sentencing  guidelines,



            including  U.S.S.G.     2J1.6  Application Note  3 and  3C1.1



            Application Note  6, and there was no double counting problem



            here.   Cf. United States v. Agoro,  996 F.2d 1288, 1291 (1st
___ _____________    _____



            Cir. 1993).



                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
________   ___























                                         -2-