
USCA1 Opinion

	




          June 5, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1014                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                 JOSEPH F. ALBANESE,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                         __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Randy Olen and John M. Cicilline on brief for appellant.            __________     _________________            Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Richard W. Rose,            __________________                              _______________        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam  After careful review of  the briefs and                      __________            record,  we  find  no clear  error  in  the district  court's            Sentencing Guidelines calculation.                      Specifically,  the  district court's  determination            that defendant was not entitled to a two-level reduction  for            acceptance of responsibility is based  on a plausible view of            the  circumstances.     We  will  not   reweigh  the  factors            considered by the district court; nor can we say as a  matter            of  law  that  defendant's  letter  to  the  victim  was  not            threatening   and   inconsistent   with  an   acceptance   of            responsibility  as contemplated  by  U.S.S.G.    3E1.1.   See                                                                      ___            United States v. Royer, 895 F.2d 28, 29 (1st Cir. 1990).            _____________    _____                      Next,  considering both  the victim's  age  and the            circumstances of  defendant's second, repeat theft  from her,            there  is   sufficient  support  for  the   district  court's            determination  that  a two-level  increase  for  the victim's            vulnerability was warranted.  See U.S.S.G.   3A1.1(b); United                                          ___                      ______            States v. Feldman, No.  95-1900, slip op. at 11-16  (1st Cir.            ______    _______            April 26, 1996); cf. United States v. Rowe, 999 F.2d 14,  16-                             __  _____________    ____            17 (1st Cir. 1993).                      Finally,  as defendant  committed the  thefts under            the  guise of his work as an investment advisor purporting to            assist  the victim, there is  no clear error  in the district            court's  imposition  of a  two-level  increase  for abuse  of            defendant's position of trust.  See U.S.S.G.    3B1.3; United                                            ___                    ______            States v. Tardiff, 969 F.2d 1283, 1289 (1st Cir. 1992).            ______    _______                                         -3-                      Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                      ________   ___                                         -4-
