Court Opinion

ID: 2964428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:31.745668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:56.107211
License: Public Domain

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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-