
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________          No. 96-1175                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                   MICHAEL MURRAY,                                Defendant - Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Chief Judge,                                          ___________                            Cyr and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                _____________________               Daniel J. O'Connell III for appellant.               _______________________               George William Vien, Assistant  United States Attorney, with               ___________________          whom  Donald K.  Stern, United  States Attorney  and Geoffrey  E.                ________________                               ____________          Hobart,  Assistant  United States  Attorney,  were  on brief  for          ______          appellee.                                 ____________________                                   August 28, 1996                                 ____________________                    Per  Curiam.  In United  States v. Catano,  65 F.3d 219                    Per  Curiam.                    ___________      ______________    ______          (1st  Cir.  1995),  a case  in  which  Michael Murray  was  a co-          appellant, we remanded his case for resentencing.   In sentencing          him, the district  court had  enhanced his base  offense by  four          levels pursuant  to   3B1.1(a), because it  concluded that Murray          had an  aggravating role in  the offense  for which  he had  been          convicted.                    In remanding we concluded that:                      [A]lthough the case  record may very well                      support the four-level enhancement:                         there is nothing in  the sentencing                         record about  any of this.   Absent                         explicit  findings,   it  could  be                         overly  impetuous  for  us,  on  so                         exiguous a predicate to jump to the                         conclusion  that  [the  enhancement                         requirements were met]. . . .          Id. at 230  (quoting United  States v. McDowell,  918 F.2d  1004,          __                   ______________    ________          1012  n.8  (1st  Cir. 1990)).    We  thus  remanded "for  further          articulation [by the district court] of  the reasons for imposing          the adjustment in accordance  with 18 U.S.C.   3553(c)."   Catano                                                                     ______          at 230.  This important,  but limited, reason for the  remand has          been fully complied  with by  the district court.   We  therefore          reject appellant's present allegations in this respect.                    Appellant's additional claim of error lacks a plausible          factual foundation.  See  Liteky v. United States, 510  U.S. 540,                               ___  ______    _____________          ___, 114 S. Ct.  1147, 1155 (1994); El F nix  v. The M/Y Johanny,                                              ________     _______________          36 F.2d 136, 140 (1st Cir. 1994).                    Affirmed.                    Affirmed                    ________                                         -2-
