
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1558                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                      RICHARD JOSEPH PICARDI, A/K/A FAT RITCHIE,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,                                   ____________________                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.                                          _____________                                 ____________________            John J. Barter on brief for appellant.            ______________            Donald K. Stern, United  States Attorney, and  James C. Rehnquist,            _______________                                __________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                   December 9, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   Upon  careful review,  we cannot  conclude                 __________            that the district court misunderstood its authority to depart            under  U.S.S.G.     5H1.4.   The  district  court's comments,            fairly read, indicate only that the departure was denied as a            matter of  discretion.  That  exercise of  discretion is  not            subject  to appellate review.   See United States v. LeBlanc,                                            ___ _____________    _______            24 F.3d 340, 348 (1st Cir. 1994).                 Further, the adjustments under  both U.S.S.G.   3B1.1(b)            (managerial   role   in   the   offense),  and   U.S.S.G.                2B1.1(b)(4)(B)  (business  of  receiving and  selling  stolen            property) did  not effect an  improper double counting.   See                                                                      ___            United States v. Reeves, 83 F.3d 203, 208 (8th Cir. 1996).            _____________    ______                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
