April 4, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 95-2040



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                 JOHN W. SHARP, III,



                                Defendant, Appellant.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Philip  R.  Desfosses, Solomon  & Desfosses,  P.A. and  Richard N.
            _____________________  ___________________________      __________

        Foley on brief for appellant.
        _____

            Deval L.  Patrick, Assistant  Attorney General,  Dennis J.  Dimsey
            _________________                                _________________

        and Lisa J. Stark, Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, on brief for
            _____________

        appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________







                      Per  Curiam.   Defendant-appellant, John  W. Sharp,
                      ___________





























            III,  challenges the  district court's  imposition of  a two-



            level  upward adjustment  to  his sentence  for violating  18



            U.S.C.     1503 (attempted  obstruction  of  justice) and  42



            U.S.C.    3631(a) (interference by force and  threat of force



            with  housing  rights).   The  adjustments  were pursuant  to



            U.S.S.G.    3B1.1(c)  for  the  defendant's leadership  role.



            After  careful review of the  parties' briefs and the record,



            we  find no  reason to  disturb the  sentence imposed  by the



            district court.



                      "Absent  a mistake  of  law, the  district  court's



            determination of a defendant's role may be set aside only for



            clear  error."   United States  v. Luciano-Mosquera,  63 F.3d
                             _____________     ________________



            1142,  1157  (1st Cir.  1995).   The  determination  is fact-



            specific and may be based on circumstantial evidence and on a



            view  of  the whole  of  the  defendant's pertinent  conduct.



            United States v. Joyce, 70 F.3d 679, 682 (1st Cir. 1995).
            _____________    _____



                      The facts showed that the defendant was  one of the



            primary actors  in the  conceiving and  carrying  out of  the



            cross-burning,  including the transport of other participants



            in  his vehicle and  setting fire to the  cross.  These facts



            and  other  record  evidence  support  the  district  court's



            finding that the defendant  "participated in the initial idea



            with  regard   to   the  cross-burning   offense,   that   he



            participated  in   the  planning  and   preparation  for  the



            commission of the offense,  that he in fact actually  lit the







                                         -3-





























            cross  on fire," and, thus,  played a leadership  role in the



            commission  of  the  offense.   See  Joyce,  70  F.3d at  682
                                            ___  _____



            (evidence of role in offense may be circumstantial).



                      We  need  not consider  the  defendant's additional



            claim that the leadership-role adjustment to the sentence for



            violation of 18 U.S.C.   1503 was  erroneous.  Any error with



            respect  to   this  sentence  would  not   have  altered  the



            defendant's combined adjusted  offense level  of fourteen  or



            affected  the  sentencing range.    "[W]hen  correction of  a



            finding  would not  change  the applicable  offense level  or



            affect  the  sentencing   range,  any  error   therein  would



            necessarily be harmless."  United States v. Bradley, 917 F.2d
                                       _____________    _______



            601, 604 (1st Cir. 1990).



                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________



















































                                         -4-