Court Opinion

ID: 2964658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:29:03.182596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:38.289536
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                ____________________
       No. 96-2303 
                                   UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,
                                         v.
                             SINH VAN TA, A/K/A AH SINH,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                ____________________
                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
                                ____________________
                                       Before
                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                          Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                ____________________
            Paul M. Yee on brief for appellant.
            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and Kevin  P. McGrath,
       Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
                                ____________________
                                   April 11, 1997
                                ____________________

                 Per 
                    Curiam. 
                            
                            Upon 
                                 careful review of the briefs and record,
            we  perceive   no  clear  error   in  the  district   court's
            determination that the  2-level adjustment  under U.S.S.G.  S
            3B1.1(c) should apply to  appellant.  The determination  that
            appellant 
                     managed 
                            at 
                               least one of his co-defendants in the drug
            transactions 
                        was 
                           adequately supported by the facts presented to
            the district court.   The district court was not required  to
            adopt 
                 appellant's interpretation of those facts, and, further,
            even 
                if 
                  appellant 
                            himself were subject to management by others,
            the S  3B1.1(c) adjustment was  applicable nonetheless.   See
            United States v. Andujar, 49 F.3d 16, 25 (1st Cir. 1995).
                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                                         -2-