USCA1 Opinion
April 29, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1650
UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
JOSE SABATER-LUGO,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this court issued on April 25, 1995 is amended as
follows:
On cover sheet, change "[Hon. Gene Carter,* U.S. District Judge]"
____________________
to "[Hon. Gene Carter,* U.S. Chief Judge]".
________________
On cover sheet, change "*Of the District of Puerto Rico, sitting
by designation." to "*Of the District Court of Maine, sitting by
designation."
April 25, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1650
UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
JOSE SABATER-LUGO,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Gene Carter,* U.S. Chief Judge]
________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Eduardo Caballero Reyes on brief for appellant.
_______________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Miguel A. Pereira,
______________ ____________________
Assistant United States Attorney, and Jos A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
_______________________
Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
_______________________
*Of the District of Maine, sitting by designation.
Per Curiam. Defendant waived any objection to the
__________
denial of an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility by
failing timely to object to the presentence report as
required by Local Rule 418.4. In any event, the district
court's alternative reasons for denying an acceptance of
responsibility adjustment -- essentially that defendant had
sought to minimize his role in the September 15, 1993
negotiations and viewed himself as the "victim" of drug
addiction and a friend working for the DEA -- are adequately
supported by the record and are appropriate reasons for
denying the adjustment. See United States v. Reyes, 927 F.2d
___ _____________ _____
48, 51 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. Royer, 895 F.2d 28
______________ _____
(1st Cir. 1990).
Defendant is not entitled to a reduction for not
obstructing justice. U.S.S.G. 3C1.1.
The judgment is summarily affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1.
________
-4-
