United States v. Camacho ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1493



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                 ELADIO CAMACHO, JR.,

                                 A/K/A DAVID RICHARD,

                                 A/K/A HECTOR PEREZ,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Benicio Sanchez Rivera,  Federal Public Defender, and Miguel  A.A.
______________________                                ____________

        Nogueras-Castro,  Assistant Federal  Public  Defendant, on  brief  for
_______________

        appellant.

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

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

        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________



                                   February 4, 1997

                                 ____________________



























                      Per  Curiam.    Eladio  Camacho  appeals  from  his
___________



            sentence  on the sole ground that the district court erred in



            denying him a two-level reduction for his "minor" role in the



            offense under  U.S.S.G.  3B1.2(b).   In a  Supplemental Order



            dated December 4, 1996, the district court found that Camacho



            was  not  "less  culpable   than  most  other  participants."



            U.S.S.G.    3B1.2,   comment.   (n.3).     We   review   such



            determinations  only for  clear error.  See United  States v.
___ ______________



            Rostoff, 53 F.3d 398, 413 (1st Cir. 1995).  "'Where more than
_______



            one reasonable inference may be drawn from  undisputed facts,



            the court's choice from among supportable alternatives cannot



            be clearly  erroneous.'" United  States v. Rodriguez  Cortes,
______________    _________________



            949 F.2d 532, 546-47 (1st Cir. 1991) (citation omitted).



                 The  district court's  role-in-the-offense determination



            in this case was  not clearly erroneous.  "[A]  defendant who



            is a drug courier is not entitled as of right  to a reduction



            of the  offense  level as  a minimal  or minor  participant."
________



            United  States v.  Lopez-Gil, 965  F.2d 1124, 1131  (1st Cir.
______________     _________



            1992)  (emphasis added).   The  undisputed fact  that Camacho



            acted as a drug courier  does not entitle him to a  two-level



            reduction for minor participation  and the court's refusal to



            grant a reduction was not clearly erroneous.



                 Camacho's sentence is affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1.
________  ___















                                         -2-