United States v. Morales-Martinez ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1569





                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                               CESAR MORALES-MARTINEZ,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                   [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Jose R. Franco Rivera on brief for appellant.
_____________________

            Guillermo  Gil,  United States  Attorney,  Jorge  E. Vega-Pacheco,
______________                             ______________________

        Chief, Criminal Division,  W. Stephen Muldrow, and  Rebecca Kellogg-de
__________________       __________________

        Jesus, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for appellee.
_____





                                 ____________________



                                   November 5, 1997

                                 ____________________

































                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and
__________



            record presented in this appeal,  we perceive no error in the



            weapons  adjustment,  U.S.S.G.      2D1.1(b)(1),  applied  in



            calculating  defendant's  sentence.     That  adjustment  was



            adequately supported  by  the  government's  version  of  the



            facts,  to which  defendant admitted.    Defendant's argument



            that he did  not possess the weapon "in  connection with" the



            drug  transaction is unsupported by the appellate record, and



            we will not  disturb the  district court's  findings in  that



            regard.   Further, given the differing circumstances in which



            defendant and  his co-defendant were  arrested, charged,  and



            pled, we cannot conclude that the differing sentences imposed



            upon  them amounted  to error.   Thus  we reject  defendant's



            equal protection  argument, as well  as his argument  that he



            should  qualify for  safety  valve  relief  because  his  co-



            defendant did so.



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







































                                         -2-