United States v. Sanchez ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________



        No. 97-1086



                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                   WILLIE SANCHEZ,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________



        No. 97-1087

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                    DAVID RIVERA,

                                 A/K/A KENNETH BAKER,

                               A/K/A CHRISTOPHER TOLAN,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________





                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                       [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________

                                 ____________________



            Louis  F. Robbio and Robbio  & Nottie Ltd. on  brief for appellant
________________     _____________________

        Willie Sanchez, alias William Sanchez.

            Martin D. Harris on brief for appellant David Rivera.
________________

            Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney,  and Richard W.  Rose,
__________________                               ________________

        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________



                                  December 31, 1997

                                 ____________________



























                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  record  and
__________



            briefs in these  companion appeals, we find no  reason to set



            aside appellants' respective sentences.  Contrary          to



            appellants'  arguments, the  district court's  calculation of



            the intended  loss reveals  no clear error,  in light  of the



            number of  ESN-MIN pairs  in defendants'  possession and  the



            expert  testimony and  other evidence  as  to average  losses



            incurred per  pair.   See United States  v. Watson,  118 F.3d
___ _____________     ______



            1315, 1319 (9th  Cir. 1997).   The  adjustment for  appellant



            Rivera's managerial role  in the offense also  was adequately



            supported, notwithstanding Rivera's present attack on his own



            credibility.



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























































                                         -2-