May 5, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 94-2174

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

MARTIN CASTILLO-SORIANO,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,

Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.

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.

Per Curiam. 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. 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,

(1st Cir.),

cert. denied,

(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.