
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1086                                             UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                   WILLIE SANCHEZ,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________        No. 97-1087                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                    DAVID RIVERA,                                 A/K/A KENNETH BAKER,                               A/K/A CHRISTOPHER TOLAN,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                       [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]                                           ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Louis  F. Robbio and Robbio  & Nottie Ltd. on  brief for appellant            ________________     _____________________        Willie Sanchez, alias William Sanchez.            Martin D. Harris on brief for appellant David Rivera.            ________________            Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney,  and Richard W.  Rose,            __________________                               ________________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                  December 31, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  record  and                 __________            briefs in these  companion appeals, we find no  reason to set            aside appellants' respective sentences.  Contrary          to            appellants'  arguments, the  district court's  calculation of            the intended  loss reveals  no clear error,  in light  of the            number of  ESN-MIN pairs  in defendants'  possession and  the            expert  testimony and  other evidence  as  to average  losses            incurred per  pair.   See United States  v. Watson,  118 F.3d                                  ___ _____________     ______            1315, 1319 (9th  Cir. 1997).   The  adjustment for  appellant            Rivera's managerial role  in the offense also  was adequately            supported, notwithstanding Rivera's present attack on his own            credibility.                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
