
USCA1 Opinion

	




          January 8, 1993       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 92-2112                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                             BEATRIZ JUNQUERA DE RIVERA,                                Defendant, Appellant.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                             Torruella, Selya and Stahl,                                    Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                              _________________________               J. Hilary Billings for appellant.               __________________               Margaret  D. McGaughey,  Assistant  United States  Attorney,               ______________________          with  whom Richard S. Cohen,  United States Attorney,  and Jay P.                     ________________                                ______          McCloskey, Assistant  United States Attorney, were  on brief, for          _________          the United States.                              _________________________                              _________________________                    Per Curiam.  This is a guideline sentencing appeal.  We                    __________          have  carefully  reviewed  the   appellant's  objections  to  the          district court's determination of her offense level and guideline          sentencing range (which, in  turn, led to her sentence).   Having          in mind, particularly, that a  criminal defendant must carry  the          burden of  proving her entitlement to downward adjustments in the          presumptively applicable  offense level, see, e.g., United States                                                   ___  ____  _____________          v.  Ocasio,  914 F.2d  330,  332  (1st  Cir.  1990), and  that  a              ______          deferential   standard    of   review   applies    to   factbound          determinations under the sentencing guidelines, see, e.g., United                                                          ___  ____  ______          States v. Ruiz, 905  F.2d 499, 508 (1st Cir. 1990)  (holding that          ______    ____          "where   there  is   more   than  one   plausible  view   of  the          circumstances,  the sentencing  court's choice  among supportable          alternatives cannot be clearly erroneous"), we see no sound basis          for overturning the lower court's findings.                      We  need go  no  further.   We  have said  before  that          "[s]entencing appeals prosecuted .  . . in the tenuous  hope that          lightning  may strike  ought not  to be  dignified with  exegetic          opinions, intricate factual synthesis, or full-dress explications          of accepted legal principles."  United States v. Ruiz-Garcia, 886                                          _____________    ___________          F.2d 474, 477 (1st Cir. 1989).  So it is here.                    The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed are                    The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed are                    _______________________________________________________          affirmed.   See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.          affirmed.   See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.          _________   ___                                          2
