
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 97-1685                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                     DAVID GELL,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Boudin, Stahl and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Thomas V. Laprade and Lambert, Coffin, Rudman & Hochman on brief            _________________     _________________________________        for appellant.            Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, Margaret D. McGaughey,            ________________                          _____________________        and Helene Kazanjian Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for        appellee.                                 ____________________                                   February 4, 1998                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  We have thoroughly reviewed the record                      __________            on appeal and the submissions  of the parties, and we affirm.            Since  the government's witness  at sentencing testified that            he had purchased at least  five kilograms of cocaine from the            appellant  during 1995  alone, and  that  appellant had  sold            cocaine to the  witness on several other occasions, there was            no  clear error  in the  sentencing  court's conclusion  that            appellant  was responsible for  the distribution of  at least            five kilograms.  United States  v. Lindia, 82 F.3d 1154, 1159                             ________________________            (1st  Cir.  1996)  (sentencing  court  must make  credibility            determinations, and reviewing court will only set those aside            for  clear  error).    It  is  apparent  from  the sentencing            transcript and  from the sentencing court's written statement            of reasons  that the court  relied on that evidence.   United                                                                   ______            States v. Van,  87 F.3d 1 (1st  Cir. 1996).  Thus,  the court            _____________            properly adopted  a  base offense  level of  32, pursuant  to            U.S.S.G.   2D1.1(c)(4).                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.                 _________                                         -2-
