[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1493
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
ELADIO CAMACHO, JR.,
A/K/A DAVID RICHARD,
A/K/A HECTOR PEREZ,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges.
Benicio Sanchez Rivera, Federal Public Defender, and Miguel A.A.
Nogueras-Castro, Assistant Federal Public Defendant, on brief for
appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Nelson Perez-Sosa,
Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.
February 4, 1997
Per Curiam. Eladio Camacho appeals from his
sentence on the sole ground that the district court erred in
denying him a two-level reduction for his "minor" role in the
offense under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(b). In a Supplemental Order
dated December 4, 1996, the district court found that Camacho
was not "less culpable than most other participants."
U.S.S.G. 3B1.2, comment. (n.3). We review such
determinations only for clear error. See United States v.
Rostoff, 53 F.3d 398, 413 (1st Cir. 1995). "'Where more than
one reasonable inference may be drawn from undisputed facts,
the court's choice from among supportable alternatives cannot
be clearly erroneous.'" United States v. Rodriguez Cortes,
949 F.2d 532, 546-47 (1st Cir. 1991) (citation omitted).
The district court's role-in-the-offense determination
in this case was not clearly erroneous. "[A] defendant who
is a drug courier is not entitled as of right to a reduction
of the offense level as a minimal or minor participant."
United States v. Lopez-Gil, 965 F.2d 1124, 1131 (1st Cir.
1992) (emphasis added). The undisputed fact that Camacho
acted as a drug courier does not entitle him to a two-level
reduction for minor participation and the court's refusal to
grant a reduction was not clearly erroneous.
Camacho's sentence is affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1.
-2-