
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1569                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                               CESAR MORALES-MARTINEZ,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                   [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Chief Judge,                                          ___________                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Jose R. Franco Rivera on brief for appellant.            _____________________            Guillermo  Gil,  United States  Attorney,  Jorge  E. Vega-Pacheco,            ______________                             ______________________        Chief, Criminal Division,  W. Stephen Muldrow, and  Rebecca Kellogg-de                                   __________________       __________________        Jesus, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for appellee.        _____                                 ____________________                                   November 5, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and                 __________            record presented in this appeal,  we perceive no error in the            weapons  adjustment,  U.S.S.G.      2D1.1(b)(1),  applied  in            calculating  defendant's  sentence.     That  adjustment  was            adequately supported  by  the  government's  version  of  the            facts,  to which  defendant admitted.    Defendant's argument            that he did  not possess the weapon "in  connection with" the            drug  transaction is unsupported by the appellate record, and            we will not  disturb the  district court's  findings in  that            regard.   Further, given the differing circumstances in which            defendant and  his co-defendant were  arrested, charged,  and            pled, we cannot conclude that the differing sentences imposed            upon  them amounted  to error.   Thus  we reject  defendant's            equal protection  argument, as well  as his argument  that he            should  qualify for  safety  valve  relief  because  his  co-            defendant did so.                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -2-
