United States v. Mosquea Mosquea ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

          March 18, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1485



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,



                                          v.



                              JESUS A. MOSQUEA MOSQUEA,



                                Defendant, Appellant.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



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



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Gabriel Hernandez Rivera on brief for appellant.
________________________

            Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Jose  A.  Quiles-
______________                                   _________________

        Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.
________





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________









































                 Per Curiam.  After careful review of the parties' briefs
__________



            and the record, we find  no reason to reverse the   mandatory



            minimum  sentence  imposed by  the  district  court under  21



            U.S.C.   841(b)(1)(B).



                 The district court found that defendant was not entitled



            to relief from the mandatory minimum sentence because  he had



            not truthfully provided all the information he had concerning



            the offense.   See   18 U.S.C.    3553(f); U.S.S.G.    5C1.2.
___



            That determination is supported by the applicable law and the



            information presented at the sentencing hearing.



                 For example, the  co-defendant's recorded  conversations



            depicted  defendant as the supplier of the cocaine.  Based on



            this and other evidence, the court permissibly could conclude



            that defendant's role extended beyond  that of a mere courier



            and that defendant's proffer,  claiming that his knowledge of



            and role  in the offense was  limited to that of  a mule, was



            not truthful.  "Where  there is more than one  plausible view



            of the  circumstances, the  sentencing  court's choice  among



            supportable  alternatives  cannot   be  clearly   erroneous."



            United States v. Ruiz, 905 F.2d 499, 508 (1st Cir. 1990).
_____________    ____



                 Similarly, the  district court was not  required to find



            that  defendant  was  a  minor  participant  or  that  he was



            entitled to a reduction under U.S.S.G.   3B1.2.  See U.S.S.G.
___



               5G1.1(c)(2) ("sentence may be imposed  at any point within



            the applicable guideline range, provided that the sentence is







                                         -2-



























            not less that  the statutorily  required minimum  sentence");



            United States  v.  Rodriguez, 938  F.2d  319, 320  (1st  Cir.
_____________      _________



            1991).



                 Affirmed.  Loc.R. 27.1.
________



























































































                                         -3-