```
       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit





No. 98-1019

                          UNITED STATES,

                            Appellee,

                                v.

                          CARLOS GAGOT,
                           a/k/a Pucho,
                        a/k/a Jose Muniz,
                    a/k/a Roberto Carlos Diaz,
                     a/k/a Jose Miguel Perez,

                      Defendant, Appellant.



           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

           [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]



                              Before

                     Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                
                                
                                
     Jennifer A. Appleyard on brief for appellant.
     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Patrick M.
Hamilton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on Motion for Summary
Disposition for appellee.





May 7, 1999



            Per Curiam.   Defendant appeals a sentence imposed
  upon his guilty plea to a five count indictment charging him
  with conspiracy and attempt to possess cocaine with intent to
  distribute the drug.  He claims that the court erred in
  imposing a two level role-in-the-offense increase under USSG �
  3B1.1(c), and a two level increase for obstruction of justice
  under USSG � 3C1.1.  The government has moved for a summary
  affirmance.
            Defendant did not object at sentencing to the
  enhancement under � 3B1.1(c), despite notice that it was
  recommended in the probation services report ("PSR"), and the
  court's announced intention to impose it, so our review is for
  "plain error."  See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725
  (1993).  There was no plain error. 
            The PSR contained detailed, clear and uncontradicted
  evidence that during one of the charged transactions defendant
  "superintend[ed] the activities of" at least one other person, 
  his pregnant teenage girlfriend.  United States v. Cruz, 120
  F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct.
  729 (1998).  This transaction was specifically referenced in
  the PSR's recommendation, and the supporting proof was
  sufficiently weighty to trigger the enhancement.  See id.; see
  also United States v. Fox, 889 F.2d 357, 359 (1st Cir. 1989)
  (holding that a court may accept the PSR facts as true and
  accurate in the absence of objection).  Any failure by the
  court to expressly intone its adoption-by-reference of the
  PSR's facts had no affect on defendant's "substantial rights,"
  since the record on which the increase is based "speaks
  eloquently for itself."  United States v. Akitoy, 923 F.2d 221,
  229 (1st Cir. 1991).     
            We also apprehend no "clear error" in the decision to
  impose the mandatory two point increase under USSG �3C1.1,
  since defendant admittedly provided the pretrial services
  officer and the magistrate with a false name, false address and
  false information about his place of birth and next of kin.
  Defendant's argument that an "actual" obstruction of justice
  was prevented by his attorney's later disclosure of the truth,
  is beside the point, as the sentencing judge held.  See United
  States v. Restrepo, 53 F.3d 396 (1st Cir. 1995). 
            Defendant's fallback position that his falsehoods 
  ultimately did not affect, or were not "material" to the
  "sentencing decision," also is beside the point.  The
  falsehoods were material to the "issue under determination"
  when defendant uttered them.  See USSG � 3C1.1 comment, n.5
  (providing that a statement is "material" if it may influence
  the issue "under determination").  Contrary to defendant's
  argument, too, the hearing transcript shows that the court made
  the necessary "findings" to support the enhancement.   
            The government's motion for summary disposition is
  granted.  The judgment is affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
```