March 18, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-