[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1175
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL MURRAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Cyr and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Daniel J. O'Connell III for appellant.
George William Vien, Assistant United States Attorney, with
whom Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney and Geoffrey E.
Hobart, Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief for
appellee.
August 28, 1996
Per Curiam. In United States v. Catano, 65 F.3d 219
Per Curiam.
(1st Cir. 1995), a case in which Michael Murray was a co-
appellant, we remanded his case for resentencing. In sentencing
him, the district court had enhanced his base offense by four
levels pursuant to 3B1.1(a), because it concluded that Murray
had an aggravating role in the offense for which he had been
convicted.
In remanding we concluded that:
[A]lthough the case record may very well
support the four-level enhancement:
there is nothing in the sentencing
record about any of this. Absent
explicit findings, it could be
overly impetuous for us, on so
exiguous a predicate to jump to the
conclusion that [the enhancement
requirements were met]. . . .
Id. at 230 (quoting United States v. McDowell, 918 F.2d 1004,
1012 n.8 (1st Cir. 1990)). We thus remanded "for further
articulation [by the district court] of the reasons for imposing
the adjustment in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3553(c)." Catano
at 230. This important, but limited, reason for the remand has
been fully complied with by the district court. We therefore
reject appellant's present allegations in this respect.
Appellant's additional claim of error lacks a plausible
factual foundation. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540,
, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1155 (1994); El F nix v. The M/Y Johanny,
36 F.2d 136, 140 (1st Cir. 1994).
Affirmed.
Affirmed
-2-