Court Opinion

ID: 2964020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:19:06.766858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:17.609913
License: Public Domain

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          March 18, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-