
USCA1 Opinion

	




          May 30, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1061                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                             EMELIO SEVERINO-CANDELARIA,                                     A/K/A JULIO,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                  [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, Chief U.S. District Judge]                                         _________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Raymond E. Gillespie on brief for appellant.            ____________________            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and  Michael J. Pelgro,            ________________                                _________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed defendant's                      __________            appellate arguments, and, finding no merit in them, we affirm            the sentence imposed by the district court.                 Contrary to  defendant's first argument,   both the form            and the substance of the district court's findings adequately            support  the  two-level  enhancement under  USSG    3B1.1(c).            Specifically, the  formal requirement of 18  U.S.C.   3553(c)            was  satisfied  by  the  district  court's  adoption  of  the            unambiguous and  undisputed PSR.  That  report indicated that            defendant committed  to and executed the sales by himself and            through  others,  supplied  the  drugs,  and  supervised   or            directed at least  one other person (e.g., "Anna"  and Mota),                                                 ____            so  that  defendant's  role   in  the  offense  was  properly            characterized  as  supervisory  or managerial.    See  United                                                              ___  ______            States  v. Schrader,  56 F.3d  288, 293-94  (1st Cir.  1996);            ______     ________            United States v. Morillo, 8 F.3d 864, 872 (1st Cir. 1993).            _____________    _______                 Further, we find  no clear error in the district court's            rejection of  defendant's claim for an  extra reduction under            USSG    3E1.1(b)(2).  Defendant only  indicated a conditional            agreement  to   plead  guilty  some  six   months  after  his            arraignment and when the  government was already prepared for            trial;  he  renounced  the agreement  that  was  subsequently            negotiated;  and he  did not  enter his  plea until  some ten            months after arraignment.  Those facts support the conclusion            that defendant's  notification of intent to  plead guilty was                                         -3-            not  "timely" for the purpose  of   3E1.1(b)(2).   See United                                                               ___ ______            States v. Morillo, 8 F.3d 864, 872 (1st Cir. 1993).             ______    _______                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -4-
