United States v. Mosquea Mosquea

USCA1 Opinion









March 18, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________


No. 95-1485

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

JESUS A. MOSQUEA MOSQUEA,

Defendant, Appellant.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Gabriel Hernandez Rivera on brief for appellant. ________________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles- ______________ _________________
Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee. ________


____________________


____________________




















Per Curiam. After 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 defendant was not entitled

to relief from the mandatory minimum sentence because he had

not truthfully provided all the information he had concerning

the offense. 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.

For example, the co-defendant's recorded conversations

depicted defendant as the supplier of the cocaine. Based on

this and other evidence, the court permissibly could conclude

that defendant's role extended beyond that of a mere courier

and that defendant's proffer, claiming that his knowledge of

and role in the offense was limited to that of a mule, was

not truthful. "Where there is more than one plausible view

of the circumstances, the sentencing court's choice among

supportable alternatives cannot be clearly erroneous."

United States v. Ruiz, 905 F.2d 499, 508 (1st Cir. 1990). _____________ ____

Similarly, the district court was not required to find

that defendant was a minor participant or that he was

entitled to a reduction under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2. See U.S.S.G. ___

5G1.1(c)(2) ("sentence may be imposed at any point within

the applicable guideline range, provided that the sentence is



-2-













not less that the statutorily required minimum sentence");

United States v. Rodriguez, 938 F.2d 319, 320 (1st Cir. _____________ _________

1991).

Affirmed. Loc.R. 27.1. ________













































-3-