
USCA1 Opinion

	




          July 8, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-1403                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                   RAFAEL TAVARES,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Ronald Ian Segal on brief for appellant.            ________________            Donald K. Stern,  United States  Attorney, Paula J. DeGiacomo  and            _______________                            __________________        George  W.  Vien, Assistant  United  States  Attorneys,  on brief  for        ________________        appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.     Defendant  pled  guilty  and   was                      ___________            sentenced to a six-year term of  imprisonment for a violation            of 21 U.S.C.    846.  On appeal he argues  for the first time            that the district court erred in permitting the government to            point out  an error  in the presentence  investigation report            (PSI) after the time for doing  so pursuant to Fed. R.  Crim.            P. 32(b)(6)(B)  had passed.   This objection not  having been            made below, it is reviewed for plain error only.  See  United                                                              ___  ______            States  v. Peppe,  80 F.3d  19, 22  (1st Cir.  1996).   After            ______     _____            careful review of the  parties' briefs and the entire  record            below,  we find  no  error.   Pursuant  to Fed.  R.  Crim. P.            32(b)(6)(D),   the  district  court  had  the  discretion  to            consider at the time of sentencing the government's objection            to  the  PSI's  manifestly  mistaken reference  to  grams  of            cocaine rather than kilograms.  Based on the entire record of            sentencing,  which  reveals   the  defendant   unquestionably            accountable  for up to 100  kilograms of cocaine,  we find no            abuse of discretion in  the district court's implicit finding            of good cause to allow the government's tardy objection.                      Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.                      ________   ___                                         -3-
