
USCA1 Opinion

	




          May 8, 1995           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 94-1897                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                             JAIME OCAMPO OCHOA-RAMIREZ,                                Defendant, Appellant.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                              _________________________               H. Manuel Hernandez on brief for appellant.               ___________________               Guillermo Gil,  United States  Attorney, and Jose  A. Quiles               _____________                                _______________          Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.          ________                              _________________________                              _________________________                    Per Curiam.  This  is a single-issue sentencing appeal.                    Per Curiam                    __________          Having carefully reviewed the record  and the briefs, we conclude          that no hint of error appears.  We explain briefly.                    A defendant  has the burden of  proving his entitlement          to a downward adjustment  in the base offense level  referable to          his role in  the offense.  See United States  v. Ocasio, 914 F.2d                                     ___ _____________     ______          330,  332 (1st Cir. 1990).  Such determinations are primarily for          the district  court.  Once  they have  been made, we  review them          only for clear  error.1  See id. at 333.   Moreover, "where there                                   ___ ___          is  more  than  one  plausible  view  of  the  circumstances, the          sentencing  court's choice among  supportable alternatives cannot          be clearly erroneous."  United States v. Ruiz, 905 F.2d 499,  508                                  _____________    ____          (1st Cir. 1990).   On this record, appellant cannot  overcome the          combined  force of these  tenets.  The  district court's decision          not  to make any adjustment  for role in  the offense seems amply          warranted.                    Although this conclusion  is fully  dispositive of  the          appeal, we add a point of clarification.  Contrary to appellant's          importuning,  a defendant  is  not a  "minor" participant  merely          because  he  is,  relatively  speaking, less  culpable  than  the          coconspirators with whom he is aligned.  See U.S.S.G.   3B1.2(b),                                                   ___          comment.  (n.3).   He  must be  "less  culpable than  the average                                        ____________________               1Here, of course, the standard is even less welcoming to the          defendant.  Appellant did not ask the district court for a "minor          participant" adjustment  (although he  did unsuccessfully seek  a          "minimal  participant" adjustment).   Because appellant argues on          appeal a  point not  raised  below, our  review is,  at best,  as          defense counsel acknowledges, for plain error.  See United States                                                          ___ _____________          v. Dietz, 950 F.2d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 1991).             _____                                          2          participant" in  similar offenses, see United  States v. Brandon,                                             ___ ______________    _______          17  F.3d 409,  460 (1st  Cir. 1994),  or, put  another  way, only          tangentially involved  in the  offense of conviction,  see United                                                                 ___ ______          States  v. Cepeda,  907 F.2d  11, 12  (1st Cir.  1990).   On this          ______     ______          standard, appellant was obviously not a minor  participant in the          drug-trafficking scheme.                    We need go no further.  We summarily affirm appellant's          conviction and the sentence  imposed by the district court.   See                                                                        ___          1st Cir. R. 27.1; see also United States v. Ruiz-Garcia, 886 F.2d                            ___ ____ _____________    ___________          474, 477 (1st Cir. 1989).          Affirmed.          Affirmed          ________                                          3
