107 F.3d 1
NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished opinions may be cited only in related cases.
UNITED STATES, Appellee,
v.
Eladio CAMACHO, Jr., a/k/a David Richard, a/k/a Hector
Perez, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 96-1493.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Feb. 4, 1997.
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.
Before SELYA, BOUDIN and LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
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.