May 30, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1061
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
EMELIO SEVERINO-CANDELARIA,
A/K/A JULIO,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, Chief U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Raymond E. Gillespie on brief for appellant.
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Michael J. Pelgro,
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed defendant's
appellate arguments, and, finding no merit in them, we affirm
the sentence imposed by the district court.
Contrary to defendant's first argument, both the form
and the substance of the district court's findings adequately
support the two-level enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(c).
Specifically, the formal requirement of 18 U.S.C. 3553(c)
was satisfied by the district court's adoption of the
unambiguous and undisputed PSR. That report indicated that
defendant committed to and executed the sales by himself and
through others, supplied the drugs, and supervised or
directed at least one other person (e.g., "Anna" and Mota),
so that defendant's role in the offense was properly
characterized as supervisory or managerial. See United
States v. Schrader, 56 F.3d 288, 293-94 (1st Cir. 1996);
United States v. Morillo, 8 F.3d 864, 872 (1st Cir. 1993).
Further, we find no clear error in the district court's
rejection of defendant's claim for an extra reduction under
USSG 3E1.1(b)(2). Defendant only indicated a conditional
agreement to plead guilty some six months after his
arraignment and when the government was already prepared for
trial; he renounced the agreement that was subsequently
negotiated; and he did not enter his plea until some ten
months after arraignment. Those facts support the conclusion
that defendant's notification of intent to plead guilty was
-3-
not "timely" for the purpose of 3E1.1(b)(2). See United
States v. Morillo, 8 F.3d 864, 872 (1st Cir. 1993).
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
-4-