
USCA1 Opinion

	




          November 14, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 95-1416                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                    MICHAEL OLUDE,                                Defendant, Appellant.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                        Selya, Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                              ______________                              _________________________               Mark F. Itzkowitz on brief for appellant.               _________________               Donald  K. Stern,  United  States Attorney,  and Michael  J.               ________________                                 ___________          Pelgro, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for the United          ______          States.                              _________________________                              _________________________                    Per Curiam.  This is another in the long, grey line  of                    Per Curiam.                    __________          sentencing appeals that trail  in the roiled wake of  the federal          courts'  introduction   to  guideline  sentencing.     Defendant-          appellant  Michael Olude advances a lone assignment of error.  He          claims that he  was merely a minor participant in  the offense of          conviction,  and that the lower court erred in refusing to reduce          his  offense level accordingly.   See U.S.S.G.  3B1.2(b).   We do                                            ___          not agree.                    Absent a mistake of law   and we discern none here   we          review a  district court's  factual findings anent  a defendant's          role in the offense only  for clear error.  See United  States v.                                                      ___ ______________          Akitoye,  923 F.2d  221, 227  (1st Cir.  1991); United  States v.          _______                                         ______________          Ocasio, 914 F.2d 330, 333 (1st Cir. 1990).  Although  this is not          ______          an  insurmountable hurdle, it is nevertheless a daunting one.  As          we  have  said before,  battles over  a  defendant's role  in the          offense are fact-based and, therefore, "will almost always be won          or lost  in the district  court."  United States  v. Graciani, 61                                             _____________     ________          F.3d 70,  75 (1st Cir. 1995).  There  is no basis for a different          result here.                    We will  not belabor  the obvious.   See,  e.g., United                                                         ___   ____  ______          States  v.  Ruiz-Garcia,  886  F.2d  474,  477  (1st  Cir.  1989)          ______      ___________          (warning, in a  sentencing appeal, that an appellate court should          not "wast[e]  overtaxed judicial resources razing  castles in the          air").  The appellant  had the burden of proving  his entitlement          to a  downward role-in-the-offense  adjustment.  See  Ocasio, 914                                                           ___  ______          F.2d at  332-33.    In  determining  whether  the  appellant  had                                          2          satisfied that burden, the sentencing court was not obligated  to          accept   the   appellant's   self-interested   account   of   his          involvement.  See United  States v. Paz-Uribe, 891 F.2d  396, 399                        ___ ______________    _________          (1st  Cir.), cert. denied, 495  U.S. 951 (1990).   And, moreover,                       _____ ______          even if, as appellant claims, he was merely a courier, he was not          automatically   entitled   to   a  downward   role-in-the-offense          adjustment.    See, e.g.,  United States  v. Lopez-Gil,  965 F.2d                         ___  ____   _____________     _________          1124, 1131 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 484 (1992); United                                 _____ ______                        ______          States v. Cepeda, 907 F.2d 11, 12 (1st Cir. 1990).          ______    ______                    We need  go no further.   Though appellant, represented          on appeal by able counsel,  presents a somewhat sympathetic case,          he has not  overcome the  formidable standard of  review.   After          all, in the world  of guideline sentencing, "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).          Affirmed.          Affirmed.          ________                                          3
