In Re: D. D'Ambrosio v.

Filing 920070806

Opinion

table
{
border-collapse: collapse;
border-spacing: 0pt;
border-color: black;
empty-cells: show;
font-family: "Courier New", monospace;
font-size: 12pt;
font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal
}

td
{
border-color: black
}

p
{
margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 1px
}

hr
{
height: 0.0125in;
background-color: black
}

td.table2column1
{
border: 0.0133333in solid
}

td.table2column2
{
border: 0.0133333in solid
}

td.table2column3
{
border: 0.0133333in solid
}

body
{
font-family: "Courier New", monospace;
font-size: 12pt;
font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal
}

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit

No. 06-1099

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

RANLEC VLADIMIR JAVIER,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Lynch, Circuit Judge,
Campbell and Selya, Senior Circuit Judges.

    Damon M. D'Ambrosio on brief for appellant.
    Robert Clark Corrente, United States Attorney, Donald C.
Lockhart and Zechariah Chafee, Assistant United States Attorneys
on brief for appellee.

 

August 3, 2007

 

 
         Per Curiam. In this direct criminal appeal,
appellant Ranlec Vladimir Javier, who pled guilty to an illegal
reentry offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), challenges
the district court's imposition of a sentence at the low end of
the applicable Sentencing Guideline range. We affirm.
         Javier objects primarily to the district court's
determination that his downward departure motion lacked merit.
He fails to show that the court misapprehended either the law
or its authority to depart, and so we cannot review its
decision. United States v. Meléndez-Torres, 420 F.3d 45, 50-51
(1st Cir. 2005) (confirming that the court of appeals "lacks
jurisdiction to review a sentencing court's refusal to depart
downward based on its belief that the defendant's circumstances
fail to warrant such departure").
         Javier suggests further that the district court
failed to make an individualized sentencing determination.
However, the sentencing transcript confirms that the opposite
is true. The district court imposed a Guideline sentence after
taking account of Javier's personal circumstances and
considering the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
         Finally, Javier argues that a "more reasonable"
sentence would have resulted if his departure motion had been
granted, but that argument is unavailing. On appeal, we
determine only whether the sentence imposed is reasonable, not
whether some other sentence would have been more reasonable.
See United States v. Jiménez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514, 519 (1st
Cir. 2006) (en banc) ("Often, there can be more than one
reasonable way of assessing a factor and more than one
reasonable result. Assuming a plausible explanation and a
defensible overall result, sentencing is the responsibility of
the district court.").
         Affirmed.