November 19, 1992     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 92-1722

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 RICARDO JOSE NOCHE,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ___________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                              Torruella, Circuit Judge,
                                         _____________

                               Campbell, Circuit Judge,
                                         _____________

                              Skinner,* District Judge.
                                        ______________

                                 ____________________

                Laura   Maldonado-Rodr guez,   Assistant   Federal   Public
                ___________________________
          Defender,   with  whom  Benicio  S nchez-Rivera,  Federal  Public
                                  _______________________
          Defender, was on brief for appellant.
                Jeanette  Mercado-R os,  Assistant United  States Attorney,
                ______________________
          with whom Daniel  F. L pez-Romo, United States Attorney, and Jos 
                    _____________________                              ____
          A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation  Counsel, were on brief for
          __________________
          appellee.

                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________

                              
          ____________________

          *  Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.














                    Per Curiam.  Appellant Ricardo Jos  Noche and three co-
                    __________

          defendants pled  guilty to  aiding and  abetting the  knowing and

          intentional possession  of 2,000 pounds of  marijuana with intent

          to distribute.   On May  28, 1992, the  district court  sentenced

          appellant  to  78  months  in prison,  five  years  of supervised

          release, and a $50 fine.  Appellant now asserts that the district

          court erred in  refusing to  grant a downward  adjustment to  his

          sentence as either a minimal or minor participant pursuant to the

          United States  Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.")    3B1.2(a) and

          (b) respectively.

                    Appellant has the burden  of proving his entitlement to

          a downward adjustment to his sentence.  U.S. v. Ocasio, 914  F.2d
                                                  ____    ______

          330, 332-33 (1st. Cir.  1990).  Only defendants who  are "plainly

          among  the least culpable  of those involved in  the conduct of a

          group"  are entitled  to  a  downward  adjustment  as  a  minimal

          participant,   U.S. v.  DiIorio, 948  F.2d 1,  5 (1st  Cir. 1991)
                         ____     _______

          (quoting  U.S.S.G.   3B1.2(a), Application  Note 1), and  to be a

          minor  participant a  defendant must  be less  culpable than  the

          average participant.  U.S.  v. Rosado-Sierra, 938 F.2d 1,  1 (1st
                                ____     _____________

          Cir. 1991).

                    We review a district court's determination of whether a

          defendant  played a  minor or  minimal role  in an  offense under

            3B1.2 only for clear error.  DiIorio, 948 F.2d at 5.
                                         _______

                    In the present case,  both parties agree that appellant

          and  his  co-defendants were  on  a vessel  that  contained 2,000

          pounds of marijuana;  they aided and abetted the  possession with

          intent  to  distribute that  marijuana,  and  expected $3,000  in















          return.   In  addition, during  his plea,  appellant acknowledged

          that he knew that the  ship was to be used to  smuggle marijuana.

          From this evidence, the district court reasonably determined that

          appellant was an active and essential participant in the offense.

                    Moreover,  appellant never  alleged  that he  was  less

          culpable than  his co-defendants.  Instead, he attempted to argue

          that the incident was part  of a larger drug smuggling  scheme in

          which he  played a minor role.  The only evidence that he offered

          in  support of this theory, however, was testimony that there was

          a captain of the ship who abandoned it due to engine trouble, and

          the fact that he was promised payment for his role in the crime. 

          Appellant  could point to no  other individuals who  were part of

          the  alleged scheme.  He  offered only speculation  that if there

          was a  captain and someone who  paid him, there must  have been a

          larger criminal structure.

                    The court committed no  clear error in determining that

          appellant failed  to  prove a  larger  criminal scheme  and  that

          appellant played more than  a minor role in the  charged offense.

          Thus, it correctly denied  the downward adjustment to appellant's

          sentence.  We affirm the district court's judgment.

                    Affirmed.
                    ________












                                         -3-