
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-1860                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                 JOSE BONILLA-ROMERO,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.                                          _____________                                 ____________________            Rafael  Gonzalez Velez  and Rafael  Gonzalez  Velez Law  Office on            ______________________      ___________________________________        brief for appellant.            Guillermo  Gil, United  States Attorney,  Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa,            ______________                            _______________________        Senior Litigation  Counsel, Edwin O. Vazquez,  Assistant United States                                    ________________        Attorney, and Nelson Perez-Sosa,  Assistant United States Attorney, on                      _________________        brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                    MARCH 27, 1997                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.  Appellant Jose Bonilla-Romero appeals                      ___________            from  the district court's  denial of his  motion to withdraw            his guilty plea  to one count of aiding and  abetting his co-            defendants  in  knowingly,   intentionally,  and   unlawfully            possessing  with intent  to distribute  cocaine and  from the            court's  denial   of  his   request  for  an   acceptance  of            responsibility reduction at sentencing.  We affirm.                       We conclude  that the district court  did not abuse            its discretion in denying  the motion to withdraw the  guilty            plea.  See United States v. Isom, 85 F.3d 831,  834 (1st Cir.                   ___ _____________    ____            1996) (describing our  standard of review and the  factors we            consider  in reviewing the denial  of a motion  to withdraw a            guilty plea).   Bonilla has  not disputed that  he agreed  to            plead guilty in  a written  plea agreement and  that he  pled            guilty under oath at a plea hearing which complied fully with            the requirements of  Fed. R. Crim. P.  11.  His  assertion of            innocence,  made  seven  weeks  after his  guilty  plea,  was            clearly belated.  The testimony of one co-defendant suggested            a  possible defense,  but  was directly  contradicted by  the            testimony  of a  different  co-defendant,  whom the  district            court obviously  credited.  See  United States v.  Wicker, 80                                        ___  _____________     ______            F.3d 263, 268  (8th Cir.  1996) (the district  court did  not            abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty            plea where the court had assessed the defendant's credibility            negatively);  United States v. Caban,  962 F.2d 646, 650 (7th                          _____________    _____                                         -2-            Cir. 1992) ("Because  credibility determinations are left  to            the  sound discretion of  the trial court,  it seems unlikely            that the  district court  abused its discretion  by rejecting            Caban's  motion to withdraw his  plea which was  based upon a            version of events that the court did not find credible.").                      Since  Bonilla  protested  his  innocence  even  at            sentencing, the district  court did not  err in declining  to            grant   him  the   requested  acceptance   of  responsibility            reduction.   See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines  Manual,   3E1.1,                         ___            comment. (n.3) (1995) (evidence that a defendant has accepted            responsibility may be  outweighed by inconsistent  conduct; a            defendant  who  has  pled  guilty   is  not  entitled  to  an            acceptance  of  responsibility  reduction  "as  a  matter  of            right"); United  States v.  Bradley, 917  F.2d 601,  606 (1st                     ______________     _______            Cir.  1990)  (affirming  the   denial  of  an  acceptance  of            responsibility  adjustment where the  defendant had  tried to            minimize his participation in the crime "to the bitter end").                      The judgment  of the  district  court is  affirmed.                      ___________________________________________________            See Loc. R. 27.1.             _________________                                         -3-
