
USCA1 Opinion

	




          April 29, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1650                                    UNITED STATES,                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,                                          v.                                  JOSE SABATER-LUGO,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                                     ERRATA SHEET            The opinion of this  court issued on April 25, 1995 is amended  as        follows:            On cover sheet, change "[Hon. Gene Carter,* U.S. District  Judge]"                                                        ____________________        to "[Hon. Gene Carter,* U.S. Chief Judge]".                                ________________            On cover sheet, change "*Of the  District of Puerto Rico,  sitting        by  designation."  to "*Of  the District  Court  of Maine,  sitting by        designation."        April 25, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1650                                     UNITED STATES,                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,                                          v.                                  JOSE SABATER-LUGO,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                        [Hon. Gene Carter,* U.S. Chief Judge]                                            ________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Eduardo Caballero Reyes on brief for appellant.            _______________________            Guillermo  Gil,  United   States  Attorney,  Miguel   A.  Pereira,            ______________                               ____________________        Assistant United States Attorney,  and Jos  A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior                                               _______________________        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                                       _______________________        *Of the District of Maine, sitting by designation.                      Per Curiam.  Defendant  waived any objection to the                      __________            denial of  an adjustment for acceptance  of responsibility by            failing  timely  to  object  to  the  presentence  report  as            required by Local  Rule 418.4.   In any  event, the  district            court's  alternative  reasons  for denying  an  acceptance of            responsibility adjustment  -- essentially that  defendant had            sought  to  minimize his  role  in  the  September  15,  1993            negotiations  and  viewed himself  as  the  "victim" of  drug            addiction  and a friend working for the DEA -- are adequately            supported  by  the record  and  are  appropriate reasons  for            denying the adjustment.  See United States v. Reyes, 927 F.2d                                     ___ _____________    _____            48,  51 (1st Cir. 1991); United  States v. Royer, 895 F.2d 28                                     ______________    _____            (1st Cir. 1990).                      Defendant is  not entitled  to a reduction  for not            obstructing justice.  U.S.S.G.   3C1.1.                      The judgment is summarily affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.                                                ________                                         -4-
