Court Opinion

ID: 2964435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:35.871366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:24.561599
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          November 25, 1996 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

          No. 95-2176

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   JEROME E. ROYAL,

                                Defendant - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                                     ERRATA SHEET

               The opinion of  this court  issued on November  12, 1996  is

          amended as follows:

               On  page  2, line  8 delete  sentences  that read:  "We also

          vacate and  remand the restitution order  for findings regarding,

          and sentencing for, only those losses that Royal reasonably could

          have foreseen.  We affirm on all other points."

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 95-2176

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   JEROME E. ROYAL,

                                Defendant - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                           and Barbadoro,* District Judge.
                                           ______________

                                _____________________

               James E.  Carroll, by  Appointment of  the Court,  with whom
               _________________
          Erin K. Kelly and Cetrulo & Capone were on brief for appellant.
          _____________     _________________
               Nadine  Pellegrini, Assistant  United States  Attorney, with
               __________________
          whom  Donald K. Stern, United  States Attorney, was  on brief for
                _______________
          appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  November 12, 1996
                                 ____________________

                              
          ____________________

          *  Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation.

                    TORRUELLA,  Chief  Judge.     Appellant  Jerome   Royal
                    TORRUELLA,  Chief  Judge.
                                ____________

          ("Royal")  makes  several claims  on  appeal.   Specifically,  he

          challenges  the denial of his motions  relating to jury selection

          and jury instructions, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting

          his conviction,  and sentencing considerations.   For the reasons

          discussed  below, we  reverse  the denial  of  Royal's motion  to

          inspect  the master  jury  wheel and  remand  to allow  Royal  to

          inspect the master jury wheel and other relevant records.

                                      BACKGROUND
                                      BACKGROUND

                                   Factual History
                                   Factual History

                    We  briefly   sketch  out   the  bare  facts   of  this

          conspiracy, providing facts related specifically to Royal as they

          become relevant.    Considering the  evidence in  the light  most

          favorable to the verdict,  United States v. Kayne, 90  F.3d 7, 13
                                     _____________    _____

          (1st Cir. 1996), the jury could have found the following.  EZ-EM,

          Inc., was  a distributorship  for Andover Tractor  Trailer School

          ("ATTS"),  a  correspondence  school in  Methuen,  Massachusetts.

          ATTS was  party to  a  program participation  agreement with  the

          Department of Education to participate in the PELL grant program,

          the Guaranteed  Student Loan program,  the Plus program,  and the

          Supplemental Loans  for Students  program.  Under  the agreement,

          ATTS must require a maximum time frame in which students complete

          a  course with  a minimum  grade average.   ATTS  entered  into a

          series of distributors' agreements whereby each distributor would

          refer students to enroll in ATTS's program.

                                         -2-

                    Darryl Simmes,  the financial  aid officer for  ATTS at

          EZ-EM, testified that  he also  acted as a  recruiter for  EZ-EM.

          Simmes worked at ALAT,  another distributor affiliated with ATTS,

          prior to joining EZ-EM.   Simmes testified that, at  ALAT, when a

          student he recruited did not meet the minimum requirements of the

          program, he falsified the student's application to make it appear

          that  he  met those  requirements.    These minimum  requirements

          included possessing  a driver's  license and making  less than  a

          certain income  to be eligible for financial  aid.  Later, at EZ-

          EM, Simmes  would contact  a student he  had recruited to  sign a

          student loan check made  out to both the student and  the school.

          These  students were  told  that they  would  not incur  debt  by

          signing the check and, often, later found that they had defaulted

          on loans  they were not  aware they  had taken out.   During  the

          course  of EZ-EM's  existence,  the  distributorship enrolled  at

          least 150 students.

                    Sometimes, EZ-EM provided students  with a set of exams

          including answers,  requesting  that a  newly registered  student

          sign off on the exams.  Other times, the tests  were forwarded to

          the student already completed.  The completed forms would then be

          returned to ATTS.   EZ-EM also supplied students with  answers to

          later lessons, sometimes  mailing these lessons to students.  EZ-

          EM would inform students that they must sign the lessons or  risk

          being thrown out of  the program.  Employees  of EZ-EM paid  some

          students to  enroll  in the  ATTS  program.   ATTS paid  EZ-EM  a

          commission of $600-$700 per student enrolled.

                                         -3-

                                  Procedural History
                                  Procedural History

                    A  grand jury  indicted Royal  on October  7, 1992,  on

          charges of conspiracy  to commit  mail fraud in  violation of  18

          U.S.C.    371, mail fraud in  violation of 18 U.S.C.    1341, and

          aiding and abetting in violation  of 18 U.S.C.   2.  On March 13,

          1995,  the scheduled  day  of trial,  a petit  jury venire  of 53

          appeared for impanelment.   Royal, a black male, orally  moved to

          strike  the jury  venire.   The  court  granted this  motion  and

          rescheduled the trial for one week from that date.

                    On March 15, Royal filed a motion to inspect the master

          jury wheel for the years  from 1993 to 1995.  The  following day,

          Royal filed a Motion to Strike Jury Venire, which argued that the

          district's  jury  selection plan  systematically  excludes blacks

          from the jury pool.  The district court  deferred ruling on these

          motions until Royal could  make a proffer demonstrating that  the

          jury plan systematically excluded blacks.

                    On  March 20,  1995,  trial commenced  in the  district

          court.  After viewing  the jury venire, Royal renewed  his motion

          to strike  the jury venire.   Royal  further moved for  a hearing

          with respect to the inadequacies of the Amended Jury Plan for the

          Eastern Division of the  District of Massachusetts ("Amended Jury

          Plan").  In support  of his various motions, Royal  submitted two

          affidavits from Dr. Gordon Sutton,  Professor of Sociology at the

          University of Massachusetts at  Amherst, which contended that the

          Amended  Jury  Plan  systematically  excluded  blacks  and  other

          minorities from the  jury venire.  The district  court determined

                                         -4-

          that  it did  not have statutory  authorization to  implement the

          remedy Royal suggested -- supplementing the jury venire such that

          it would provide  a fair  cross-section of the  community --  and

          denied Royal's motions.

                    Following  the close  of  the government's  case, Royal

          moved  for judgment  of acquittal  on all  counts.   The district

          court  granted  the motion  only as  to  Count 24,  charging mail

          fraud.  After a six day  trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts

          on one  count of conspiracy and eight  counts of mail fraud, with

          verdicts of  not guilty  on four counts  of mail fraud.   Royal's

          sentence  included 27 months  imprisonment, 36  months supervised

          release, and restitution of $30,000.  This appeal followed.

                                      DISCUSSION
                                      DISCUSSION

                                  I.  Jury Selection
                                  I.  Jury Selection
                                      ______________

                    Appellant Royal asserts  that he was unconstitutionally

          denied his right to a jury selected at random from  a fair cross-

          section of the  community, as guaranteed by the  Sixth Amendment.

          Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S.  522, 528 (1975).  That  same right
          ______    _________

          is ensured by the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968.  See 28
                                                                     ___

          U.S.C.    1861 et seq. (1994).
                         __ ____

                    A.   Motion to Inspect the Master Jury Wheel Records
                    A.   Motion to Inspect the Master Jury Wheel Records
                         _______________________________________________

                    "To  the  extent  that [Royal's]  contentions  rest  on

          statutory interpretations, we review  the district court's denial

          of [Royal's] motion de novo. .  . .  The district court's factual

          findings,   however,  will  not   be  disturbed   unless  clearly

                                         -5-

          erroneous."   United  States v.  Bailey, 76  F.3d 320,  321 (10th
                        ______________     ______

          Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 116 S. Ct. 1889 (1996).
                 ____________

                    At  the first  hearing,  held on  March  15, 1995,  the

          district court stated  that the request before it was essentially

          a  request  for an  evidentiary hearing  to  extend the  scope of

          requested evidence to include discovery of the master jury wheel.

          The court then placed the burden on Royal to show "by a factually

          supportable submission  that there  is some reasonable  basis for

          supposing  that the matters you're  asking to get  into will have

          some material bearing  upon a decision I am to make."  Transcript

          of  hearing,  March  15, 1995,  at  6.    Because  Royal made  no

          factually supportable  showing of relevance  and materiality, the

          district court denied the motion to inspect.

                    On  a second motion  to inspect  the jury  records, the

          district court  suggested that, in order to inspect the requested

          records, Royal  was required to make  a showing that he  would be

          able  to satisfy the three prongs  of Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S.
                                                _____    ________

          357  (1979).   Under Duren, in  order to establish  a prima facie
                               _____

          violation of  the fair cross-section  requirement, "the defendant

          must  show (1)  that  the  group  alleged to  be  excluded  is  a

          'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation

          of this group  in venires from which  juries are selected is  not

          fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons  in

          the community;  and (3) that  this underrepresentation is  due to

          systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process."

          Id.  at 364.   The  district court  expressed concern  that Royal
          ___

                                         -6-

          would  not  be  able  to  satisfy  the  third  prong  by  showing

          systematic  exclusion.   Accordingly,  it  deferred ruling  until

          Royal  could make  a  showing that  would  enable the  court  "to

          determine  whether we  are  doing something  that is  potentially

          useful  or  instead  doing  something  that's  just  a  waste  of

          resources  because  it  will   not  be  useful  in  any   event."

          Transcript of Hearing, March 17, 1995, at 15-16.

                    Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant has the right to

          a  jury  selected from  a  source  fairly representative  of  the

          community.  See Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 527-28 (1975).
                      ___ ______    _________

          Section 1867  of Title  281 establishes  "the exclusive  means by
                              
          ____________________

          1  Section 1867 of Title 28 states, in relevant part:

                      (a)    In criminal  cases, before  the voir
                    dire begins, or within  seven days after  the
                    defendant    discovered    or   could    have
                    discovered, by the exercise of diligence, the
                    grounds therefor, whichever  is earlier,  the
                    defendant  may move to dismiss the indictment
                    or  stay the  proceedings against him  on the
                    ground of substantial failure to  comply with
                    the provisions of this title in selecting the
                    grand or petit jury. . . .

                                        * * *

                      (d)  Upon motion filed under subsection (a)
                    .  . .  of this  section, containing  a sworn
                    statement  of  facts  which, if  true,  would
                    constitute  a  substantial failure  to comply
                    with the provisions of this title, the moving
                    party shall be entitled to present in support
                    of  such motion  the  testimony  of the  jury
                    commission  or  clerk,   if  available,   any
                    relevant  records and  papers  not public  or
                    otherwise   available   used   by  the   jury
                    commissioner or clerk, and any other relevant
                    evidence. . . .  If the court determines that
                    there  has  been  a  substantial  failure  to
                    comply with  the provisions of this  title in

                                         -7-

          which a person accused of a Federal crime . . . may challenge any

          jury on the ground  that such jury was not selected in conformity

          with the provisions of [the Title]."  28 U.S.C.   1867(e) (1994).

          In Test v. United  States, 420 U.S. 28 (1975),  the Supreme Court
             ____    ______________

          interpreted the relevant statutory language of section 1867.  See
                                                                        ___

          Test, 420  U.S. at 30.   Before voir  dire examination  or within
          ____

          seven days after the defendant could  have discovered the grounds

          for a challenge, a  defendant may move to dismiss  the indictment

          or stay  the proceedings for  substantial failure to  comply with

          the  provisions of the title.  28  U.S.C.   1867(a).  The statute

          requires that the challenge be  accompanied by "a sworn statement

          of  facts which, if true, would  constitute a substantial failure

          to comply with" these provisions.  28 U.S.C.   1867(d).  Relevant

          to our inquiry here, subsection (f) of section 1867 provides that

          "[t]he  parties . . . shall be allowed to inspect, reproduce, and
                              
          ____________________

                    selecting  the petit  jury,  the court  shall
                    stay the proceedings pending the selection of
                    a petit jury in conformity with this title. .
                    . .

                                        * * *

                      (f)  The contents of records or papers used
                    by the jury commission or clerk in connection
                    with the  jury selection process shall not be
                    disclosed,  except  pursuant to  the district
                    court  plan or  as  may be  necessary in  the
                    preparation or presentation of a motion under
                    subsection (a) . . . of this section . . .  .
                    The  parties in  a case  shall be  allowed to
                    inspect, reproduce, and  copy such records or
                    papers at  all  reasonable times  during  the
                    preparation   and   pendency   of    such   a
                    motion. . . .

          18 U.S.C.   1867 (1994).

                                         -8-

          copy  such records or papers  at all reasonable  times during the

          preparation and pendency of such a motion."  28 U.S.C.   1867(f).

          It is this particular subsection with which the Supreme Court was

          concerned in Test and which is dispositive of Royal's challenge.
                       ____

                    In  Test, the  district  court denied  the  defendant's
                        ____

          motion to  inspect the jury selection records pursuant to section

          1867(e).   Test,  420 U.S. at  29.  The  Supreme Court determined
                     ____

          that the  language in subsection (e)  established "essentially an

          unqualified right  to inspect  jury  lists."   Id. at  30.   This
                                                         ___

          interpretation was supported "not  only by the plain text  of the

          statute, but  also by the  statute's overall purpose  of insuring

          'grand  and petit  juries selected  at random  from a  fair cross

          section of the community.'"  Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C.   1861).  The
                                       ___

          Court  admonished that, without  such access, a  litigant will be

          unable  to determine whether he has a meritorious claim.  See id.
                                                                    ___ ___

          We adhere to and  apply the Supreme Court's determination  that a

          defendant,  such  as   Royal,  challenging  the  jury   selection

          procedures has an unqualified right to inspect jury records.

                    Because the  right of access to  jury selection records

          is "unqualified," a district  court may not premise the  grant or

          denial of a  motion to inspect upon a showing of probable success

          on  the merits of a  challenge to the  jury selection provisions.

          See  Test,  420 U.S.  at  30.   Although  the  burden  is on  the
          ___  ____

          defendant  to establish  a prima  facie case  of unconstitutional

          exclusion,  see United States  v. Pion, 25  F.3d 18,  22 n.4 (1st
                      ___ _____________     ____

          Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 115 S. Ct. 326 (1994), the right
                 ____________

                                         -9-

          of access to the  jury selection records  is a precursor to  this

          burden and is intended to provide the defendant with the evidence

          necessary  to mount a  proper showing.   To avail  himself of the

          right of access to  jury selection records, a litigant  need only

          allege  that he  is  preparing a  motion  to challenge  the  jury

          selection process.  See United States v. Alden, 776 F.2d 771, 773
                              ___ _____________    _____

          (8th  Cir.  1985).    The  district court,  therefore,  erred  in

          requiring  Royal to  make a  showing of  probable success  on the

          merits of his jury selection challenge as a condition of granting

          access to the records.

                    Furthermore,  a  district  court  may  not   require  a

          defendant requesting  access to jury selection  records to submit

          with that request  "a sworn  statement of facts  which, if  true,

          would  constitute  a  substantial  failure  to  comply  with  the

          provisions  of this title."  28 U.S.C.   1867(d).  The procedural

          mechanisms of  the jury  selection provisions require  the moving

          party to submit a sworn statement to support a motion to strike a

          jury venire  or challenge the  selection processes; such  a sworn

          statement  is not  required to  support a  motion to  inspect the

          records.  See  id.  The  Supreme Court has  established that  the
                    ___  ___

          right of access is "unqualified."  The Eighth Circuit, faced with

          an appeal of the nature of Royal's, recognized that,

                    [a]lthough the district  court's analysis  is
                    persuasive, the district court is not free to
                    establish   additional    requirements   that
                    defendants must  meet in order to gain access
                    to jury selection records.  The Supreme Court
                    has  unequivocally stated  that the  right to
                    inspect   these   records   is   'essentially
                    unqualified' and is  conditioned only in  the

                                         -10-

                    manner  set forth  in the  statute.   Test v.
                                                          ____
                    United States, 420 U.S. at 30.
                    _____________

          Alden,  776 F.2d  at 775.   Thus,  while the  district court  may
          _____

          establish reasonable procedures whereby  the inspection may  take

          place, the district  court does not have  discretion to formulate

          additional requirements beyond those  established by the statute.

          Id.
          ___

                    Nevertheless, we find that  this error does not require

          that we reverse Royal's  conviction.  Rather, we remand  the case

          with  instructions to allow  Royal access  to "[t]he  contents of

          records  or  papers  used by  the  jury  commission  or clerk  in

          connection with the jury selection process," 28 U.S.C.   1867(f),

          in order to support a motion to strike the jury venire.  If Royal

          determines that the Amended Jury Plan violates the jury selection

          procedures  required under  the statute,  he may  move for  a new

          trial under 28 U.S.C.   1867(a).   See United States v.  Marcano-
                                             ___ _____________     ________

          Garc a, 622 F.2d  12, 18 (1st Cir. 1980).   If the district court
          ______

          finds that the  Amended Jury Plan violates the constitutional and

          statutory  requirements, the  court may  order a  new trial.   28

          U.S.C.   1867(d).

                    B.   The Evidentiary Hearing
                    B    The Evidentiary Hearing
                         _______________________

                    As a  remedy  for the  allegedly unconstitutional  jury

          selection  process, Royal  seeks  an evidentiary  hearing on  the

          merits  of his  claim.   As we  noted  above, the  district court

          treated Royal's motion to strike the jury venire as a request for

          an evidentiary hearing regarding the contents of the  master jury

          wheel.   The district  court sought  from Royal  a  showing by  a

                                         -11-

          factually supportable submission that  the documents Royal sought

          would have a material bearing on the jury selection challenge.

                    In  the normal  motions  context, a  "party seeking  an

          evidentiary hearing must  carry a fairly  heavy burden."   United
                                                                     ______

          States v. McGill, 11 F.3d 223, 225 (1st Cir. 1993).  When a judge
          ______    ______

          denies a  party's request for  an evidentiary hearing,  we review

          that determination for  abuse of  discretion.   United States  v.
                                                          _____________

          Jim nez  Mart nez, 83  F.3d 488,  498 (1st  Cir. 1996);  see also
          _________________                                        ________

          United States v. Garc a, 954 F.2d 12, 19 (1st Cir.  1992) (noting
          _____________    ______

          that a  criminal defendant  "is  not entitled  to an  evidentiary

          hearing upon demand").

                    Here,  the  district  court  denied the  motion  for  a

          hearing because it found  that Royal failed to show that he could

          meet the third prong of the Duren test.   However, Royal's motion
                                      _____

          was  made  without the  benefit of  information  to which  he was

          entitled as a matter of law.   On remand, if Royal is able to use

          this  information on the jury selection process to show a factual

          dispute  that, if  resolved in  his favor,  would entitle  him to

          relief, then he would be entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

                    C.   Motion to Strike the Jury Venire
                    C    Motion to Strike the Jury Venire
                         ________________________________

                    Because Royal was erroneously denied access to the jury

          selection documents,  his arguments  in support of  his challenge

          are not fully developed.  At this time, our consideration of  the

          merits of his  challenge would  be premature.   We remand to  the

          district court Royal's  jury selection challenge  so that it  may

          review Royal's claim in  the first instance, after a  full record

                                         -12-

          has been developed.   See Davidson v.  Sullivan, 942 F.2d 90,  96
                                ___ ________     ________

          (1st Cir.  1991) (adopting a similar posture).  We do not pass on

          the merits of Royal's claim.

                      II.  Jury Instruction on Conspiracy Charge
                      II.  Jury Instruction on Conspiracy Charge
                           _____________________________________

                    Royal  contends   that   the  district   court's   jury

          instruction on the  charge of  conspiracy was in  error and  that

          error  lessened  the  government's   burden  of  proof  beyond  a

          reasonable  doubt.  In deciding whether the trial court submitted

          erroneous instructions  to the  jury, we "determine  whether [the

          instruction]  tended  to  confuse  or  mislead  the  jury  on the

          controlling issues."  Brown v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 891 F.2d
                                _____    ________________________

          337,  353 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990).  We
                                     ____________

          consider the instructions "as  a whole; portions of it are not to

          be treated in isolation."  Id.  We find that the instructions, as
                                     ___

          a  whole, were not erroneous.   In fact,  as discussed below, the

          double intent  instruction may  have heightened  the government's

          burden.  Consequently, not only did the instruction not prejudice

          Royal, it in fact benefitted Royal.  There was no error.

                    The statutory  provision under which  Royal was charged

          finds a  violation of the law "[i]f  two or more persons conspire

          either to commit  any offense  against the United  States, or  to

          defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or

          for any purpose,  and one or more  of such persons do any  act to

          effect the object  of the conspiracy .  . . ."   18 U.S.C.    371

          (1966).    The  district court's  instruction  on  the charge  of

          conspiracy was, in pertinent part, as follows:

                                         -13-

                      In order to establish that the defendant is
                    guilty  of  this  charge of  conspiracy,  the
                    Government   must   prove   these   essential
                    elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

                      First:   That two or more persons knowingly
                    conspired,  combined or  agreed to  commit an
                    offense  against  the   United  States,   the
                    purpose of  which was to  commit mail  fraud,
                    and  that  the   conspiracy  was  formed   or
                    existing at or about  the time alleged in the
                    indictment.

                      Second:   That the defendant  knowingly and
                    intentionally   became   a   member  of   the
                    conspiracy.

                      Third:    That  one  of   the  conspirators
                    knowingly did some  act to effect the  object
                    of the conspiracy.

                                        * * *

                      The  intent that the  Government must prove
                    beyond  reasonable  doubt  to  establish  the
                    charge  of  conspiracy  in  this case  is  an
                    intent  to   defraud   as  alleged   in   the
                    indictment.   It  is not  necessary, however,
                    for the Government to  prove an intent on the
                    part of  the defendant to  participate in all
                    parts or aspects of the conspiracy.

                                        * * *

                      There are  two  aspects of  the intent  the
                    Government  must  prove  beyond a  reasonable
                    doubt.

                      First, the Government must prove the intent
                    to agree to be a member of the conspiracy.

                      Second,  the  Government  must   prove  the
                    intent to participate in the commission of at
                    least one of the substantive offenses.

          Transcript  at 6-49--6-54.   Royal,  in his  brief, sets  out the

          following portion  of the  instructions in  support of  his claim

          that the district court erred in its instructions to the  jury on

          the required intent of conspiracy:

                                         -14-

                      It  is not  required  that  the  Government
                    prove, in  order to establish  the conspiracy
                    offense, that the defendant had the intent to
                    commit  personally  all  of  the  substantive
                    crimes  that  were within  the object  of the
                    conspiracy.      Stated   another  way,   the
                    requirement is that the Government prove both
                    an  intent to  agree to  be a  member of  the
                    conspiracy  and  an  intent   to  participate
                    personally in the commission  of at least one
                    of the substantive offenses.

          Id.  at 6-54.    Reviewing this  instruction,  we find  that  the
          ___

          district court's  instructions, by using language  that imposes a

          higher  burden on the government  than the law  requires, did not

          prejudice Royal.   Therefore,  reversal of Royal's  conviction is

          not warranted.

                    Royal claims that this  court has applied two different

          definitions of conspiracy, and  that the district court's attempt

          to  reconcile the conspiracy precedents led to the error of which

          he now complains.   Royal  contends that the  controlling law  in

          this circuit requires the government to prove that Royal intended

          to enter into  the agreement forming the conspiracy  and intended

          to commit the substantive offense.  In so arguing, Royal misreads

          this court's precedents.

                    The Supreme Court has said that "[i]n a conspiracy, two

          different types  of intent are  generally required  -- the  basic

          intent to agree, which is necessary to establish the existence of

          the conspiracy, and the more traditional intent to effectuate the

          object of the conspiracy."  United States v. United States Gypsum
                                      _____________    ____________________

          Co., 438  U.S. 422, 443 n.20  (1978).  It is  by now well-settled
          ___

          that  the government need  not prove that  the defendant intended

                                         -15-

          personally to commit  the substantive crime  or crimes that  were

          the object of the  conspiracy.  United States  v. Piper, 35  F.3d
                                          _____________     _____

          611, 615 (1st Cir. 1994),  cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1118  (1995).
                                     ____________

          Piper plainly refutes Royal's argument that he was entitled to an
          _____

          instruction that  he  intended to  commit multiple  acts of  mail

          fraud.   The  district court's  instruction that  "the government

          must  prove the  intent to  participate in  the commission  of at

          least  one  of  the   substantive  offenses"  was,  if  anything,

          generous, and we find no error prejudicing Royal's rights.

                          III.  Sufficiency of the Evidence
                          III.  Sufficiency of the Evidence
                                ___________________________

                    Finding   that  the  legal   principles  were  properly

          presented  to  the jury,  we turn  to  Royal's argument  that the

          evidence  was  insufficient   to  sustain  his   convictions  for

          conspiracy and mail fraud.   Royal contends first that  there was

          no  evidence of his knowledge of the conspiracy and "virtually no

          evidence" that he engaged in fraudulent conduct in furtherance of

          the  conspiracy to  defraud the  government  and the  students he

          enrolled in the program.   Royal also argues that  the government

          failed to  prove that he had  the specific intent to  defraud the

          Department  of  Education  required  to support  his  mail  fraud

          conviction.  We first review the evidence presented to the jury.

                    "In  assessing a  challenge to  the sufficiency  of the

          evidence, we 'review the record to determine whether the evidence

          and  reasonable inferences therefrom, taken as a whole and in the

          light most favorable to  the prosecution, would allow  a rational

          jury  to determine beyond  a reasonable doubt  that the defendant

                                         -16-

          [was]  guilty as charged.'"   United States v.  Sullivan, 85 F.3d
                                        _____________     ________

          743, 747 (1st Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Mena-Robles, 4
                                            _____________    ___________

          F.3d 1026, 1031 (1st Cir.  1993), cert. denied sub nom., __  U.S.
                                            _____________________

          __, 114 S. Ct. 1550 (1994)).

                    Drawing  all  reasonable  inferences  in  favor  of the

          verdict, the  jury could have  found the following  about Royal's

          involvement in the EZ-EM conspiracy.  Appellant    Royal    began

          working for EZ-EM in December 1988.  At the beginning of 1989, he

          replaced  Darryl  Simmes as  financial  aid  officer at  EZ-EM  a

          position  paid by  ATTS.   At  the time  he  held that  position,

          financial   aid  officers  were   prohibited  from   engaging  in

          recruitment activities.   While serving as  financial aid officer

          at EZ-EM Royal also engaged in recruitment activities.

                    For each student he enrolled in the ATTS program, Royal

          received  a $100-$125  commission.   For  this commission,  Royal

          would pay  current students to bring  in others to enroll  in the

          program.   Royal  also paid  students to  enroll in  the program.

          Royal was given a copy of the answers to provide students to help

          them complete the  ten lessons required  upon enrollment.   Royal

          was aware  that many of the students who signed up did not intend

          to complete the ATTS program, but merely signed up to receive the

          twenty dollars he  paid them.  Because  of this, he often  either

          gave  students  copies  of  the answer  sheets  or  completed the

          students' tests himself.  Royal gave at least two students copies

          of  the  answers to  the  tractor  trailer correspondence  course

          lessons,  which were completed and  sent to ATTS.   Sometimes, he

                                         -17-

          instructed students to change a few of the answers so that  their

          test scores would  not consistently equal one  hundred.  Although

          the first set of lessons were provided when  a student signed up,

          thereafter the  tests and  sometimes the  answers were mailed  to

          students.

                    A student receiving federal  financial aid for the ATTS

          program was required  to have received  no prior federal  student

          loans.   When  signing  up  students  for  financial  aid,  Royal

          instructed those who  had previous federal student  loan debt not

          to  list  the debt  on their  financial  aid applications.   Upon

          Royal's arrival  at EZ-EM  Darryl Simmes  explained to  Royal the

          procedure by  which student loan  checks would  be signed,  which

          included  paying  others  to  assist  the  school  in  getting  a

          "reluctant  student" to  sign  a check.    At times,  Royal  paid

          students twenty dollars  to sign  the loan checks.   Royal  would

          sometimes explain to students  that, by signing the  loan checks,

          they  would  be  able to  return  the  checks  and eliminate  the

          indebtedness.     In  addition,   Royal  obtained  the  endorsing

          signatures  of students on the  back of student  loan checks that

          they did not  know they were  endorsing or would  be liable  for.

          The  students often were not  told when they  entered the program

          that they would  have to pay up  front or that they  would need a

          loan  prior to moving  on to the  next level of  the course work.

          Royal told  one student  that the  check was  being sent back  to

          ATTS, but that EZ-EM needed his signature to send it back.  Royal

          did not inform him that he would incur debt by signing the check.

                                         -18-

          Two  other  students  later   received  statements  in  the  mail

          referring  to a loan that they had  unknowingly taken out.  Royal

          accompanied recruiters  whose role it  was to  talk the  students

          into  signing  over  the  loan  checks  to  the  school.    These

          recruiters, however, did not explain to the students that signing

          the loan checks would result in their incurring debt.  Royal also

          witnessed Emmet Cotter,  the owner of  EZ-EM, using a  flashlight

          and  later a xerox machine to trace student signatures on various

          documents.  At one  point, Cotter also requested that  Royal sign

          three checks totalling $30,000 so that Royal could be paid.

                    Royal signed up students for the tractor trailer course

          who  did not have valid  drivers' licenses.   When this occurred,

          Royal would simply  make up  a driver's license  number.   Simmes

          explained  to Royal that,  when he recruited  students, he should

          leave blank  responses on the applications of students who stated

          that  they did  not  have a  driver's license  or  that they  had

          previously obtained financial aid.  Cotter explained to Royal how

          to  make up  a  driver's license  number,  which Royal  did  when

          filling out applications for those students who did not possess a

          driver's  license.     He  completed  applications   using  false

          information, including misstating an applicant's criminal record.

                    A.   Conspiracy Charge
                    A.   Conspiracy Charge
                         _________________

                    The evidence  on this record sufficiently  supports the

          jury's guilty verdict on  the conspiracy charge.  The  conspiracy

          count charged Royal with engaging in a conspiracy "[t]o knowingly

          devise and execute a scheme and artifice to obtain money by means

                                         -19-

          of false  and fraudulent pretenses, representations  and promises

          and, for the purpose  of executing and attempting to  execute the

          scheme," engaging in mail fraud.  As will  be discussed below, we

          find  the evidence sufficient to convict Royal of mail fraud, the

          substantive offense charged in this conspiracy.

                    In  order to prove a conspiracy under section
                    371, the government must prove  the existence
                    of a conspiracy, the defendant's knowledge of
                    and  voluntary participation  in it,  and the
                    commission of an overt  act in furtherance of
                    the agreement.  . . . The  agreement need not
                    be proved  to have been explicit,  and may be
                    proved by circumstantial evidence.

          United  States v. Frankhauser, 80  F.3d 641, 653  (1st Cir. 1996)
          ______________    ___________

          (citations  omitted).    To prove  voluntary  participation,  the

          government must prove that  the defendant had an intent  to agree

          and an  intent to effectuate the  object of the conspiracy.   See
                                                                        ___

          Piper, 35 F.3d at 615; see also Frankhauser, 80 F.3d at 653.  "To
          _____                  ________ ___________

          uphold a conviction, the  court need not believe that  no verdict

          other than a guilty  verdict could sensibly be reached,  but must

          only  satisfy itself that the  guilty verdict finds  support in a

          plausible rendition of the record."  United  States v. Echeverri,
                                               ______________    _________

          982  F.2d 675,  677  (1st  Cir.  1993)  (citations  and  internal

          quotations omitted).

                    The  evidence  here,  taken  together  and drawing  all

          reasonable inferences therefrom,  supports Royal's conviction for

          conspiracy.   The jury  could  have concluded  that a  conspiracy

          existed  whereby the  employees of  EZ-EM defrauded  the students

          whom  they  signed up  for student  loans  and, in  that process,

          utilized  the United States' mails.   Furthermore, the jury could

                                         -20-

          have  found that  Royal  intended  to  agree  to  engage  in  the

          conspiracy  and   intended  to  effectuate  the   object  of  the

          conspiracy.    Based on  the  circumstantial  evidence, including

          testimony that  Royal  engaged  in acts  in  furtherance  of  the

          conspiracy,  that he described  to others his  fraudulent acts in

          furtherance of  the conspiracy,  and gained financially  from his

          own  acts  and  those  of  his co-conspirators,  the  jury  could

          conclude  that  Royal  had  an  intent  to  agree  with  his  co-

          conspirators.   In addition,  from the  evidence that  Royal paid

          students  to enroll in the program, paid students to sign student

          loan  checks,  told students  who  signed  loan checks  that,  by

          signing  the check,  they  would not  incur debt,  forged student
                                           ___

          drivers' license numbers, and misstated students' past government

          loan history and criminal records, the jury  could have concluded

          that he did so with an  intent to defraud these students and used

          the  mails  in  doing  so.    All  of  these  served  as acts  in

          furtherance  of the conspiracy to  defraud.  Here,  Royal did not

          merely know  of his fellow  employees' illegal activities.   See,
                                                                       ___

          e.g., United States v. Soto, 716 F.2d 989, 991-92 (2d Cir. 1983).
          ____  _____________    ____

          Royal took steps necessary  to effectuate the illegal conspiracy.

          Accordingly,  Royal's  conviction  on  the  conspiracy  count  is

          supported by sufficient evidence.

                    B.   Mail Fraud
                    B.   Mail Fraud
                         __________

                    Second, Royal complains  that his convictions on  eight

          counts of mail fraud  were not supported by  sufficient evidence.

          "To prove mail . .  . fraud, the government must prove,  beyond a

                                         -21-

          reasonable  doubt:    (1)  the defendant's  knowing  and  willing

          participation in  a scheme or  artifice to defraud  with specific

          intent  to  defraud, and  (2)  the use  of  the mails  .  .  . in

          furtherance of the  scheme."   United States v.  Sawyer, 85  F.3d
                                         _____________     ______

          713, 723 (1st Cir. 1996).   "The defendant need not instigate the

          scheme  so  long as  he willfully  participates  in it,  with the

          knowledge of its fraudulent nature and with the intent to achieve

          its  illicit objectives."  United States v. Yefsky, 994 F.2d 885,
                                     _____________    ______

          891-92 (1st Cir.  1993).   A particular defendant  need not  have

          placed a specific item into the mails.  It is enough that the use

          of  the  mails took  place in  the  ordinary course  of business,

          Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954), or was reasonably
          _______    _____________

          foreseeable as a result  of the conspiracy participants' actions,

          Yefsky, 994 F.2d at 892.
          ______

                    Here, documents  in which  Royal included  misstated or

          fraudulent information were sent to ATTS.   Even if Royal did not

          place those documents  into the  mails, it follows  that, in  the

          ordinary  course  of  business,  admissions  and federal  student

          financial aid applications  completed by Royal  would be sent  to

          ATTS, the  information from those  applications would be  sent to

          the  Department of  Education,  and information  from the  school

          would be sent to the students.  It also follows that student loan

          checks would  be sent  through the mails.   The  jury could  have

          reasonably found that it was reasonably foreseeable by Royal that

          the mails would be utilized to perpetrate this scheme to defraud.

                                         -22-

                    The scheme to defraud in this case consisted of actions

          on the part of  EZ-EM employees to convince  students to sign  up

          for  the ATTS program, apply for federal student loans, loans for

          which  they sometimes did not  qualify, incur debt  that they did

          not realize they would be obligated to repay, and to mislead some

          students to believe that  they would not incur debt  by endorsing

          the  loan  checks.    As  a  result  of  these  acts,  ATTS  paid

          commissions to EZ-EM.   From these commissions, the  employees of

          EZ-EM  who perpetrated the acts to defraud the students were paid

          salaries or commissions.   The jury  could reasonably have  found

          that  these acts constituted a scheme to defraud the students EZ-

          EM enrolled in ATTS.

                    Royal  contends  that the  government  was required  to

          prove  that  he had  the specific  intent  to defraud  the United

          States Department of Education.   Although the indictment against

          Royal charges him  with "a  scheme to defraud  the United  States

          Department  of  Education,  and  the   students  and  prospective

          students  of ATTS," the government was not required to prove that

          he intended to defraud  the Department of Education specifically.

          The statute requires only that there be a scheme to  defraud, see
                                                                        ___

          18  U.S.C.   1341,  and we  have  required only  a  showing of  a

          specific intent to  defraud.   United States v.  Sawyer, 85  F.3d
                                         _____________     ______

          713, 723 (1st  Cir. 1996).  The jury  could have reasonably found

          that Royal had a specific intent to engage in a scheme to defraud

          the students.  This is all that is  required.  Royal's conviction

          on the  mail fraud  counts is supported  by sufficient  evidence.

                                         -23-

          Because  the government  met its  burden by  showing a  scheme to

          defraud  the students, we do  not address whether  it also proved

          that Royal had  a specific  intent to defraud  the Department  of

          Education.

                      IV.  Application of Sentencing Guidelines
                      IV.  Application of Sentencing Guidelines
                           ____________________________________

                    Royal next directs  several challenges at  the district

          court's application of the  United States Sentencing  Guidelines.

          We  review a  district court's  factual determinations  under the

          guidelines for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.  United
                                                           _______   ______

          States  v. Balogun, 989 F.2d 20, 22  (1st Cir. 1993).  We address
          ______     _______

          each challenge in turn.

                    A.   Mitigating Role -- Section 3B1.2
                    A.   Mitigating Role -- Section 3B1.2
                         ________________________________

                    Royal contends that  his role in the commission of this

          conspiracy  was of such a  lesser degree of  culpability than his

          co-conspirators' that  the district court erroneously  denied his

          motion  for a downward departure.  "We first note that defendants

          are not automatically entitled to a downward adjustment, whatever

          their  role in  the crime."   Balogun,  989 F.2d  at 22-23.   The
                                        _______

          Sentencing Guidelines allow a four level departure for one who is

          a minimal  participant, meant to  apply to those  "defendants who

          are plainly among  the least  culpable of those  involved in  the

          conduct of a group."  U.S.S.G.   3B1.2, application note 1.  This

          departure  is meant to be  used infrequently.   U.S.S.G.   3B1.2,

          application note 2.   The Guidelines allow a two  level departure

          for one who is a minor participant in the criminal activity; this

          departure  is  meant to  apply to  "any  participant who  is less

                                         -24-

          culpable than  most other participants, but whose  role could not

          be  described as minimal."  U.S.S.G.   3B1.2, application note 3.

          Where  the defendant's conduct falls between  these two levels of

          culpability, a downward departure of three levels may be awarded.

          U.S.S.G.   3B1.2.

                    "The  defendant has  the burden  of showing that  he is

          entitled to a reduction in his offense level under   3B1.2 .  . .

          .   On  appeal, the  defendant must  establish that  the district

          court's determination  was clearly erroneous."   United States v.
                                                           _____________

          Cartagena-Carrasquillo, 70 F.3d  706, 716 (1st  Cir. 1995).   The
          ______________________

          record   on  which   the   district  court   based  its   factual

          determination  of  Royal's  role  in this  offense  supports  the

          finding that Royal was neither a minimal nor a minor participant.

          Royal's role in the  EZ-EM operation was integral.   He recruited

          students  for a program for which EZ-EM, and in turn Royal, would

          receive  monetary commissions.   Royal  falsified information  on

          school applications  and federal  student loan applications.   He

          was  responsible  for   obtaining  student  signatures  endorsing

          student  loan  checks.    Indeed,  Royal  even  misled  some into

          believing that by endorsing  the check they would be  relieved of

          any indebtedness.   All of these acts were integral to the scheme

          to   defraud  the   students  and   the  co-conspirators   gained

          financially as a result.  The district court also was entitled to

          find that Royal had  knowledge of and intent to further the scope

          and  all aspects of  the conspiracy.   We cannot  find that Royal

          played  a less significant role or that he was less culpable than

                                         -25-

          his  co-conspirators in  effecting the scheme  to defraud.   See,
                                                                       ___

          e.g., Santiago-Gonz lez, 66 F.3d  3, 8 (1st Cir. 1995).  Based on
          ____  _________________

          these  findings,   we  cannot  say  that   the  district  court's

          sentencing determination was clearly erroneous.

                    Royal  compares   his  situation  to   cases  in  which

          conspirators were  granted downward departures.   In those cases,

          the sentencing court determined that the  defendant's role in the

          commission of the crime was minimal  or minor.  See, e.g., United
                                                          ___  ____  ______

          States v. Mu oz, 36 F.3d 1229, 1238 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied
          ______    _____                                      ____________

          sub  nom., __ U.S. __,  115 S. Ct. 1164 (1995);  United States v.
          _________                                        _____________

          Innamorati,  996 F.2d  456, 490  (1st Cir.  1993), cert.  denied,
          __________                                         _____________

          510 U.S. 1120 (1994); United States v. De La Cruz, 996 F.2d 1307,
                                _____________    __________

          1314-15 (1st  Cir.), cert.  denied,  510 U.S. 936 (1993);  United
                               _____________                         ______

          States  v. DiIorio, 948  F.2d 1,  3-6 (1st  Cir. 1991).   Royal's
          ______     _______

          burden is  a heavy one and  although he may consider  his role in

          the offense more comparable to that  found in the cases he cites,

          the  district court found otherwise.  "[W]here 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.  Santiago-Gonz lez, 66 F.3d  at 7.
                        _____________     _________________

          Royal  claims that the only evidence offered against him at trial

          was  that "he worked in the Niagara  Falls office of ATTS and met

          some of the government's witnesses when they visited the office."

          Royal's attempt to put his own  spin on the facts does not render

          the district  court's determination  clearly erroneous.   Each of

          Royal's  acts was an integral  part of the  scheme to defraud and

                                         -26-

          the sentencing court was not clearly erroneous in denying Royal's

          requested downward departure under the guidelines.

                    B.   More than Minimal Planning
                    B.   More than Minimal Planning
                         __________________________

                    Royal  complains that  the  district  court  improperly

          adjusted upward two levels  because Royal's acts and role  in the

          offense  required  more  than  minimal planning.    See  U.S.S.G.
                                                              ___

            2F1.1(b)(2)(A).  Royal maintains that the trial testimony shows

          that he was "merely an office attendant" at EZ-EM and that he was

          not  present when  the "principal  planners" met  to discuss  the

          scheme.

                    The Commentary  to section  2F1.1 refers the  reader to

          the definition of "more  than minimal planning" set forth  in the

          Commentary to section 1B1.1.  There, "more than minimal planning"

          is defined as "more  planning than typical for commission  of the

          offense  in a simple form."   U.S.S.G.    1B1.1, application note

          1(f).  "'More  than minimal  planning' is deemed  present in  any

          case involving repeated acts over a period of time,  unless it is

          clear that each instance was purely opportune."  Id.
                                                           ___

                    "[W]e  are not  inclined to reverse  a finding  of more

          than minimal planning unless  the evidence compels the conclusion

          that the  defendant's actions were  purely opportune or  'spur of

          the moment.'"   United States v. Brandon,  17 F.3d 409, 459  (1st
                          _____________    _______

          Cir.), cert. denied sub  nom., __ U.S. __, 115 S.  Ct. 80 (1994).
                 ______________________

          We  find that  here, the  complex scheme  to defraud  and Royal's

          conduct  in  furtherance of  it  were not  purely  opportune and,

          therefore, meet  the definition of "more  than minimal planning."

                                         -27-

          The trial  testimony demonstrates  that Royal engaged  in several

          repeated fraudulent acts in furtherance  of this conspiracy.  The

          sentencing  court  was entitled  to  find,  under the  definition

          provided by  the guidelines,  that Royal's  repeated acts in  the

          course of  this conspiracy  required more than  minimal planning.

          The district  court did not  err in making a  departure upward to

          take this into account.

                                         -28-

                                V.  Restitution Order
                                V.  Restitution Order
                                    _________________

                    Royal makes  two arguments challenging the  validity of

          the district court's restitution order.  Royal contends  that the

          order of  restitution  in  the amount  of  $30,000  lacked  legal

          support because  it  attributes more  losses  to him  than  those

          caused  by the counts for which  he was convicted.  Royal further

          maintains that the  order was  improper because he  is unable  to

          repay such a large amount.   The district court has the authority

          to impose restitution under  Title 18 of the United  States Code,

          sections 3663 and 3664.

                    Royal's  first  contention  amounts  to  the following.

          Because  his  convictions  included  four counts  of  mail  fraud

          relating to the mailing  of only four loan checks, he should only

          be  required  to pay  restitution in  the  total amount  of those

          checks, $9870.   In the  alternative, Royal argues  that, if  his

          conviction for  conspiracy is included in  the restitution order,

          the  total loss reasonably foreseeable to him would be the amount

          of checks  that passed through EZ-EM during the time he worked at

          the Niagara Falls operation.   Royal claims this amount  would be

          no  more than $17,272.50.  Based on this analysis, Royal contends

          that the restitution order of $30,000 was excessive.

                    At  the time  of  Royal's criminal  acts, a  sentencing

          court could  impose  restitution only  for losses  caused by  the

          defendant's  offense or  offenses.   18 U.S.C.    3663;  see also
                                                                   ________

          Hughey  v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 414 (1990); United States
          ______     _____________                            _____________

          v. Camuti,  78 F.3d  738, 746  (1st  Cir. 1996).   Although  this
             ______

                                         -29-

          authority  under  the  statute   was  subsequently  broadened  by

          congressional amendment  to require  restitution to  include harm

          resulting from "the defendant's criminal conduct in the course of

          the  scheme, conspiracy, or pattern,"  see 18 U.S.C.   3663(a)(2)
                                                 ___

          (Supp.  1996), the amendments  do not  apply retroactively.   See
                                                                        ___

          Camuti, 78 F.3d at  746.  Accordingly, under the  applicable law,
          ______

          Royal is  correct in  arguing  that he  may  be ordered  to  make

          restitution only  for the  "loss caused by  the specific  conduct

          that is the  basis of the  offense of conviction."   Hughey,  495
                                                               ______

          U.S. at 413.

                    We have previously held that restitution may be imposed

          for a mail fraud conviction "only if it stems from a  transaction

          linked to  a specific mailing."   Camuti, 78 F.3d at  746.  While
                                            ______

          the amount attributable to the specific mailings  for which Royal

          was  convicted may amount to only $9870, Royal was also convicted

          of  conspiracy  to defraud  the Department  of Education  and the

          students  of ATTS.  In  the sentencing context,  one convicted of

          conspiracy may be held liable for the acts of his co-conspirators

          in furtherance of the conspiracy that are reasonably foreseeable,

          as  the  Sentencing  Guidelines  explicitly  provide.    U.S.S.G.

            1b1.3(a)(1)(B);  see also  United States  v. O'Connor,  28 F.3d
                             ________  _____________     ________

          218, 222 (1st  Cir. 1994).   Thus, the  district court may  order

          Royal to pay restitution not only for an amount equivalent to the

          four student loan checks  involved in the mail fraud  counts, but

          also for any other reasonably foreseeable loss caused by Royal or

          his co-conspirators acting in furtherance of this conspiracy.

                                         -30-

                    Royal  has argued  that the  district court  improperly

          based  its loss  determination on  defaults caused  by acts  that

          occurred in 1988, prior to the time in the last one or two months

          of 1988 when he joined the Niagara Falls conspiracy.   It is true

          that  "[b]y definition,  acts  that occurred  before a  defendant

          enters  a conspiracy  cannot be  foreseeable."  United  States v.
                                                          ______________

          Balogun, 989  F.2d 20, 22 (1st Cir. 1993).   And upon a review of
          _______

          the  sentencing hearing  transcript,  it  indeed appears  unclear

          whether the sentencing court took into account acts that occurred

          prior to Royal's involvement.  But the record also indicates that

          Royal  waived  this objection  in  the  district court,  and  any

          hypothetical  error in the calculation  of loss does  not rise to

          the  level of plain error.  See  United States v. Winter, 70 F.3d
                                      ___  _____________    ______

          655, 659  (1st Cir. 1995), cert.  denied, __ U.S. __,  116 S. Ct.
                                     _____________

          1366 (1996).

                    Although Royal extensively challenged  the government's

          calculation of the  reasonably foreseeable  loss attributable  to

          him,  he  never  argued  that  the  loss  calculation  improperly

          included  losses  connected  with   acts  prior  to  his  initial

          involvement.  Having failed to  raise this objection below, Royal

          is now bound to demonstrate that any error  affected "substantial

          rights."  Id.  But this seems doubtful -- the  district court set
                    ___

          the total amount of restitution at $500,000,  but ordered partial

          restitution of  only $30,000 because of Royal's lack of financial

          resources.    Even   if  the  court   had  excluded  all   losses

          attributable to  acts from  1988, it seems  implausible that  the

                                         -31-

          court's total restitution figure would have dropped from $500,000

          to less than $30,000.  Because any possible error here falls well

          short  of the standard for considering  waived claims, we decline

          to remand the restitution determination.

                    Finally,  Royal's contention that  the district court's

          restitution order is in  error because Royal lacks the  financial

          resources necessary to repay the amount imposed is without merit.

          We have  noted in the past  that, although a court  must consider

          the   financial  situation   of  the   defendant  when   imposing

          restitution, see 18 U.S.C.    3664(a), it need not  make specific
                       ___

          findings  regarding  the defendant's  finances  "so  long as  the

          record on appeal reveals that the judge made implicit findings or

          otherwise adequately evinced his consideration of those factors."

          United States  v. Savoie, 985 F.2d 612, 618 (1st Cir. 1993).  The
          _____________     ______

          record adequately reflects the  district court's consideration of

          Royal's  financial  ability to  make  restitution.   Indeed,  the

          district court lowered the amount of restitution from $500,000 to

          $30,000   in   light    of   Royal's   financial   circumstances.

          Furthermore,  the court  noted that  if Royal  is unable  to make

          restitution in  full during the  course of his  prison employment

          and  thereafter  during  the period  of  his  parole,  he has  no

          obligation.    "Although  we  agree  that  the  evidence  in  the

          presentence  report may  not be  able to  support a  finding that

          [Royal]  has the ability to  pay restitution in  that amount, the

          statute  does not require such  a finding; it  requires only that

          the district court consider the defendant's financial resource as

                                         -32-

          a factor in arriving at the figure."  United States v. Newman, 49
                                                _____________    ______

          F.3d 1,  10 (1st Cir. 1995).   We find that  the sentencing court

          did not abuse its discretion by imposing restitution here.

                                      CONCLUSION
                                      CONCLUSION

                    Based  on the  foregoing  considerations, we  affirm in
                                                                  affirm
                                                                  ______

          part and reverse and remand in part.
                   reverse     remand
                   _______     ______

                    So ordered.
                    __________

                                         -33-