
<head>

<title>USCA1 Opinion</title>



	<style type="text/css" media="screen, projection, print">



		<!--

		@import url(/css/dflt_styles.css);

		-->

	</style>

</head>

<body>

<p align=center>

</p><br>

<pre>      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] <br>                 United States Court of Appeals <br>                     For the First Circuit <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>No. 98-1790 <br> <br>                          UNITED STATES, <br> <br>                            Appellee, <br> <br>                                v. <br> <br>    OSIRIS NATERA-SOSA, a/k/a SEALED DEFENDANT 4, a/k/a NIKE, <br> <br>                      Defendant, Appellant. <br> <br> <br> <br>           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT <br> <br>                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO <br> <br>        [Hon. Jess A. Castellanos, U.S. Magistrate Judge] <br> <br> <br> <br>                              Before <br> <br>                      Lynch, Circuit Judge, <br>                 Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, <br>                   and Lipez, Circuit Judge. <br>                                 <br>                                 <br> <br> <br>     Alexander Zeno on brief for appellant. <br>     Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Nelson Perez-Sosa, <br>Assistant United States Attorney, and Michelle Morales, Assistant <br>United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>March 11, 1999 <br> <br> <br> <br>                                         <br>      <br> <br>     Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we <br>perceive no clear error in the enhancement of defendant's sentence <br>under U.S.S.G.  3B1.1(c).  The information available to the <br>district court, including among other things the pre-sentence <br>report and the suppression hearing, adequately supported the <br>finding that defendant was a supervisor and organizer in the <br>conspiracy.  We will not set aside the district court's fact- <br>specific decision.  See United States v. Cruz, 120 F.3d 1, 3 (1st <br>Cir. 1997). <br>     Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. <br></pre>

</body>

</html>

