[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1079
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
BARRY TWOMEY,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
Diana L. Maldonado on brief for appellant.
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Jeanne M.
Kempthorne, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
October 14, 1997
Per Curiam. Defendant-appellant Barry Twomey pled
guilty to two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. 2113(a). In sentencing him, the district court
awarded a two-level reduction in his base offense level for
his acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
3E1.1(a). The sole issue on appeal is whether the district
court committed clear error in denying an additional one-
level reduction under 3E1.1(b).
"A defendant bears the burden of proving entitlement to
decreases in the offense level, including downward
adjustments for acceptance of responsibility. Once the
sentencing court has ruled against him on such an issue, the
defendant faces an uphill battle. . . .The clearly erroneous
standard . . . guides appellate review of district court
determinations under section 3E1.1(b)." United States v.
Morillo, 8 F.3d 864, 871 (1st Cir. 1993).
In denying the additional one-level reduction under
3E1.1(b), the court ruled that the timing of appellant's
expression of his intent to plead guilty had not permitted
the government to avoid preparing for trial. Specifically,
the district court found that when appellant indicated his
intention to plead guilty, ten days before the second
scheduled trial date, the government had already made
substantial submissions and prepared its witnesses. Neither
that finding nor the court's determination on that basis that
-2-
appellant did not qualify for the additional one-level
reduction was clearly erroneous.
Appellant's sentence is summarily affirmed. See Loc. R.
27.1.
-3-