UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                    No. 99-4852
JUAN PABLO GONZALEZ, a/k/a
Ruperto German Gonzalez Rosete,
a/k/a Chevello,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-99-288)

Submitted: June 30, 2000

Decided: September 20, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

J. Preston Strom, Jr., STROM & YOUNG, L.L.P., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Cameron Glenn Chandler, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Juan Pablo Gonzalez appeals his sentence, following a guilty plea,
to fifty-seven months imprisonment for his role in a marijuana distri-
bution conspiracy. His counsel has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues, but asserting that: (1) the court erred in imposing
an increase in Gonzalez's offense level for his role in the offense pur-
suant to USSG § 3B1.1 (1998), and (2) the court erred in declining
to apply a reduction to his offense level pursuant to the safety valve
provision, USSG § 5C1.2 (1998). Gonzalez was informed of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Gov-
ernment declined to file a brief. Our review of the record reveals no
error.

The district court's factual determinations regarding a defendant's
role in the offense are reviewed for clear error. See United States v.
Sarno, 24 F.3d 618, 622-23 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v.
Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). In deciding whether
to apply an enhancement based on the defendant's role in the offense,
the court considers several factors including, among others, the defen-
dant's recruitment of accomplices, the degree of control exercised
over other conspirators, and the claimed right to a larger share of the
offense proceeds. See United States v. Rhynes, 206 F.3d 349, 383 (4th
Cir. 1999) (en banc), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 2000 WL 622939,
622949, 626304 (U.S. June 5, 2000) (Nos. 99-9386, 99-9393, 99-
9458). Here, there was evidence that Gonzalez recruited an inter-
preter, directed another conspirator's drug deliveries, and received
proceeds from fronting marijuana to a seller. He also participated in
price negotiations. Although it was clear that two other individuals
were the leaders of the conspiracy, Gonzalez exercised some supervi-
sory responsibility. Thus, the district court did not clearly err in
applying the two point enhancement for his role in the offense. See
USSG § 3B1.1(c).

                    2
As the district court correctly noted, a defendant who is subject to
an increase in his offense level based on his role in the offense is not
eligible for the safety valve reduction. See USSG § 5C1.2(4). Accord-
ingly, Gonzalez was not entitled to a two point safety valve reduction.

We have reviewed the record and find no other potentially merito-
rious claims. Accordingly, we affirm Gonzalez's conviction and sen-
tence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court for further review. If the client
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a peti-
tion would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave
to withdraw from further representation. Counsel's motion must state
that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3
