June 18, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1051
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
MAURICIO HENAO,
A/K/A NELSON RAMIREZ,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
William V. Devine, Jr. on brief for appellant.
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, Margaret E. Curran
and Stephanie S. Browne, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief
for appellee.
Per Curiam. After a 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 the defendant was not entitled to relief from the
mandatory minimum sentence because he had not truthfully
provided to the government all the information he had
concerning the offenses. 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.
In his last-minute letter to the government, the
defendant acknowledged that the drug transaction occurred in
his apartment but, claiming his co-defendant obtained the
drugs, disclaimed any knowledge of where the cocaine came
from. But, in addition to the kilogram offered in the
transaction, the defendant's apartment contained two other
caches of cocaine. Further, there were other indicia that
the defendant was a professional drug dealer (the large
amount paid by the defendant to enter the country illegally
to take a low-paying job; defendant's possession of a beeper;
and defendant's significant role in the transaction).
Accordingly, the district judge was fully entitled to
conclude that the defendant's role was not, as he claimed,
that of a mere middle man in one transaction and that the
defendant, if he had wanted, could have told the government
-2-
more about the origins of the cocaine and the workings of the
operation. Defendant bore the burden to persuade the court
that the safety valve conditions had been met, United States
v. Montanez, 82 F.3d 520, 523 (1st Cir. 1996); and, reviewing
the district court's contrary decision under the clear error
standard, id., we have no basis for overturning the district
court's decision or any reason to reach the alternative
finding that the defendant is disqualified from safety valve
relief as a "manager."
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1.
-3-